Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

HAPTON COLLIERY, BURNLEY (EXPLOSION)

Mr. H. Hynd: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Power whether he would make a statement on the explosion which occurred at Hapton Colliery yesterday.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): There was an explosion at the Hapton Valley Mine, near Burnley, at a quarter to ten yesterday morning. My latest information is that 16 men were killed and 37 injured.
Investigations are now taking place and I have meanwhile decided that a public inquiry should be held under Section 122 of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954.
I should like to express my deep sympathy for the relatives and friends of the men who were killed or injured and my hope that the injured men will quickly recover.

Mr. Hynd: I thank the Minister for his statement and expressions of sympathy, with which, I am sure, all my right hon. and hon. Friends will wish to be associated. I am glad to hear that a special inquiry will be held. Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to ensure that the causes of this accident are fully investigated, to try to avoid such tragedies in this dangerous occupation?

Mr. Wood: I will certainly do that.

Mr. Gunter: May I associate the Opposition Front Bench with the Minister's expressions of sympathy?
I should like to pay tribute to the almost incredible heroism revealed at such moments as this by the men who search for the dead and for the injured. I always find that words are a very poor vehicle to convey our feelings when tragedies like this happen, but they have very real poignancy for those of us who were born in mining communities. I am happy to know that the Minister is to order the fullest inquiry to be made. If there are any lessons to be learned from it, I hope that we shall learn them very quickly indeed.

Mr. Wood: I was pleased to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about the rescue workers, because it is something with which I entirely agree.

Orders of the Day — CARRIAGE BY AIR (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.2 a.m.

Mr. Airey Neave: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is the first time that I have been successful in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills. I hope not only that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, but will find that it is in the public interests of all those concerned with air travel.
During the past few years, Parliament has enacted into our law several reforms relating to the respective rights of passengers and carriers, both by air and by sea. It is important for the future of air travel in particular that these should be standardised throughout the world. I am grateful for the official help which I have received on the Bill and to those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have shown an interest in the important points it raises on the rights of passengers and of those who carry cargo by air.
It is worth noting that legislation to give effect to international conventions on the liability of carriers by air and by sea has in recent times been initiated by private Members. In 1958, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham) introduced the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Bill which brought charterers of ships under the Brussels Convention on liability. I remember supporting him in that Measure when I was Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the then Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. My hon. Friend's Measure was something of a parallel to the present Bill, which deals with carriage by air.
In addition to what I have said about the reforms in regard to the liability of shipowners and charterers, last year the Carriage By Air Act, 1961, was sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). That was to give effect to the

provisions of The Hague Protocol of 1955, which made certain alterations in the Warsaw Convention of 1929, relating to carriage by air.
My Bill is supplementary to my hon. Friend's Act. It contains some provisions corresponding to it. One of its purposes is to enable the Government to ratify the Guadalajara Convention of 1961, which was signed in September of that year. I am not an international lawyer. Indeed, I have ceased to practise law, but I will endeavour to explain to the House the purposes of the Convention.
The Guadalajara Convention cleared up a number of doubts as to the position of international carriers by air. In particular, it dealt with the liability of the contracting carrier, who is a person who enters into a contract to carry by air, but is not himself a person who performs the contract. This Bill, therefore, is important for the rights of passengers by air in the event of accident, and also for those who organise holiday tours abroad for groups of people and then charter aircraft to carry them.
It also affects the case of an operator who arranges to carry passengers or cargoes by air, but because, for instance, his aircraft is temporarily unserviceable, puts those passengers on the aircraft of another company. That is a very important practical effect of the Bill.
It also includes certain possibilities with regard to the carriage of cargo—for example, where a person known as the freight consolidator agrees to carry cargo from several different consignors, but places these goods with a single air operator to be carried in a single operation.
All these would be affected by the Bill. It does not, however, touch cases in which an airline ticket is bought over an agent's counter in the normal way. It does not affect the normal business of travel agencies with regard to the purchase of airline tickets. The reason is that Article (b) of the Guadalajara Convention says:
'contracting carrier' means a person who as a principal—
I emphasise the word "principal"—
makes an agreement for carriage governed by the Warsaw Convention with a passenger or


consignor or with a person acting on behalf of the passenger or consignor;
It also defines the "actual carrier" which would normally be the airline operator in this case.
The Guadalajara Convention is also scheduled in French in my Bill, following the precedent set by my hon. Friend's Act of 1961. Conventions on carriage by air aim at achieving uniformity in international law, and the text of the original Warsaw Convention was in French. Both texts in my Bill are authentic, but, in case of inconsistency, this Bill provides, as did the 1961 Act, that the French text is to prevail. I do not think that it would be right for each country to paraphrase the convention into its own law. That is the reason for this provision and for the inclusion of the French text as well as the English text of the relevant articles in the Schedule.
The effect of the Guadalajara Convention is to bring both the contracting and the actual carriers within the terms of the Warsaw Convention, so that the passengers have rights against both, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, without proof of fault, and the liability limits of the Convention are extended to both.
It therefore clarifies in an important and, I think, businesslike way, the rights of passengers to take proceedings, and is, in my view, in the public interest, particularly where inclusive tours by air are concerned. As the House knows, there has been a considerable increase in this form of holiday travel in the last few years.
Before I go further into the Clauses, I must give a short account of how the position actually arose and why the signatories of the Guadalajara Convention came to this decision. Although the question of limitation of liability was fully debated in 1961 in Parliament, on the Carriage by Air Act, I should remind the House of the original Warsaw Convention on Carriage by Air, because this Bill, in effect, makes a considerable reform in the legal definition of a carrier by air under those Conventions.
The Warsaw Convention was adopted by the House in the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, and unified certain rules, particularly on questions of liability. As the

House knows, it fixed limits on the liability of the carrier for death or injury of a passenger in notional gold francs to the equivalent of £3,000.
That figure, of course, was subsequently amended by The Hague Protocol of 1955, but this has not been ratified yet and is still not in force. The Carriage by Air Act, 1961, gave effect to that alteration. In the Warsaw Convention, on liability, negligence by an operator did not have to be proved by the plaintiff. The onus of proof was on the carrier to show that he had taken all steps to avoid damage. It made him liable for damage to goods and gave detailed provisions for airline tickets and documentation. The plaintiff was also given the right to bring his action before certain convenient courts.
The Warsaw Convention, signed by no fewer than 50 States, related to international carriage, which was defined as:
Carriage between territories of contracting parties or within the territory of a single party if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory not subject to the authority of a power not a party to the convention.
That is a paraphrase which means that "international carriage" is, for example, from Paris to London, but could be a trip from London to Malta with a stop at Rome.
Under the Carriage by Air Act, 1932, the House gave the Minister power to apply these limitations of liability to "non-international carriage." That was last done by Order in 1952, applying to domestic flights and, for example, to a flight from London to Turkey, which is not a party to the Warsaw Convention.
The Warsaw Convention introduces a valuable element of uniformity. If one travels by air half round the world today, perhaps on a number of different airlines, one's rights as a passenger will generally be the same throughout and enforceable with the minimum of delay. The Warsaw Convention, however, has begun to creak in places over the years and, therefore, various international conventions have reformed it.
I have already mentioned that The Hague Protocol altered the limits of liability in 1955, and ratification of that provision was the purpose of the Carriage by Air Act, 1961. The Protocol as a whole has still to be ratified. Both


the Warsaw Convention and The Hague Protocol suffered from one important ambiguity. They defined the rights of passengers and carriers but they referred only to one carrier—the person who actually performs the carriage and who is now, under the Guadalajara Convention, called the "actual" carrier.
They also made clear that carriage by successive air carriers is a single operation. Where they were not clear—and this has caused doubt for some time—is in the case where the person who contracts the carriage is not the person who performs the carriage. Therefore, which carrier was liable? The person with whom the passengers entered into contract of carriage, or the person in whose aircraft they flew? I have already given practical examples. There has been a good deal of legal argument on this point internationally. The purpose, therefore, of the Guadalajara Convention and of this Bill is to simplify that position.
We want to avoid a situation where, if an accident involves both types of carrier, the interpretation placed upon the Warsaw Convention of 1929 by our courts differs from that, say, of the German or French. Although there has been no actual litigation in this country on this point as yet, I believe that the increase in organised holiday travel makes it very much in the public interest that there should be no doubts. I understand that the point has caused some uncertainty to airlines and to underwriters as well.
It is true that at present a travel agent may be sued for breach of contract in the United Kingdom without any limit to the damages. In the case of inclusive tours, he usually contracts as a principal in the whole operation. If, therefore, he were sued in continental courts he might find himself liable under the Warsaw Convention. I think that now that the point has been raised in connection with contracting carriers the Guadalajara Convention should be ratified without delay, and this Bill enables the Government to do so. The Bill, therefore, gives effect to that decision that both carriers, contracting and actual, under the Warsaw Convention are liable, though they both have their liability limited under the terms of the Warsaw Convention, in

future as amended by The Hague Protocol.
I may just mention certain Articles of the Convention before coming on to the Clauses of the Bill. Under Article III of the Guadalajara Convention, acts and omissions of a carrier or his servants or agents are deemed to be those of either carrier. That means the actual carrier or the contracting carrier. Article V also limits the liability of servants or agents of either carrier if their actions are in the scope of their employment.
If the Bill is passed, then, as far as the United Kingdom courts are concerned, the plaintiff, the person injured, or the relative of a person killed, in an accident can sue either carrier or both subject to the provisions of the Warsaw Convention when it is amended by The Hague Protocol. It also means that if only one carrier is sued he can join the other carrier in the proceedings.
Under Article IX of the Convention it is not possible by any contractual provision to relieve either carrier of liability under this Convention by writing something on the back of a ticket or similar action of that kind.
I think that the various provisions of this short Convention are just to both passengers and consignors. Therefore, I hope the House will support the Bill, to the Clauses of which I will now very briefly refer.
Clause 1 simply incorporates the provisions of Article I of the Guadalajara Convention and it provides that the French text should prevail in the event of an argument about textual consistency. The courts can, therefore, look to the French text. By subsection (1) of this Clause the Convention would have the force in law in the United Kingdom irrespective of the nationality of the aircraft. That, as I see it, is the effect of subsection (1).
Clause 2 defines the Warsaw Convention to which the Mexican one, the Guadalajara Convention, of September, 1961, is supplementary. Sufficient ratifications, of which there have to be five, have not yet been received.

Mr. John Wells: Before my hon. Friend leave the matter of the French text, I should be grateful if he would amplify his views about Clause 1


and its effect in our courts if there should be any difference of opinion.

Mr. Neave: On the question of the French text, so far as I know there is no actual inconsistency between the two texts. It is certainly unusual in modern times for an Act of Parliament to contain a text in French, but the Bill follows the precedent of the Act of 1961.
The courts would be enabled to look at the French text if there were any dispute on the interpretation of either text, and the French text would be the dominant text for all courts of parties signatory to the Convention, as the original Warsaw Convention was drawn up in French alone. That is really the reason. The courts would look at the French text if there were any inconsistency, and the French text would prevail. I hope that that meets my hon. Friend's point. It is quite an important one.

Clause 2 defines the Warsaw Convention to which, as said, the 1961 Guadalajara Convention is supplementary, when Section 1 of the 1961 Act introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South comes into force and when the Protocol at The Hague is signed and the Warsaw Convention is amended. The process of ratification, I understand, has been rather held up by the United States authorities who are arguing the case and against The Hague Protocol, and there is a very considerable debate going on about the Liability limits under The Hague Protocol, but that is not strictly relevant to the contents of my bill. The carriers referred to in my Bill would come under The Hague Protocol when ratified. Till, therefore, Section 1 of the 1961 Act comes into force the Warsaw Convention referred to is the unamended one on the question of limiting liability.

It may seem curious that I recommend the House to proceed with the Guadalajara Convention defining carriers before the amending Hague Protocol is ratified, but this decision on contracting carriers is such a practical reform, in my view, that there is no need to postpone it. In the interests of the travelling public it should come into force as soon as possible. Only five ratifications are required by the Guadalajara Convention and at a later date, when The Hague Protocol does come to take effect, then the limit would be affected by the new

limits, but there is no point in postponing the new definition of carrier and thus the contracting carrier under the Warsaw Convention.

Clause 3, to take it shortly, first of all enables the court in the case of a legal action on this point to have regard to proceedings elsewhere and to make an order at discretion. It also applies to servants and agents a time limit of two years. That limitation for bringing proceedings under the 1961 Act arises from the Warsaw Convention and it means servants and agents enjoy the benefit of that time limit. It provides that contracting States would be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of British courts, that is to say, to be sued in the United Kingdom under the Warsaw Convention.

Clause 4 is a rather difficult one.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: It always is.

Mr. Neave: I can understand the hon. Member's position there, but I think that my Clause is not so difficult as is his.
This is also connected with the time limit I have mentioned. If ratification of the Guadalajara Convention should come into effect first, of course it would mean the Warsaw Convention unamended by The Hague Protocol. I think myself that that will probably happen, and that this Bill should come into force as soon as possible.
Without this Clause we could have a situation that during the interim period before the 1961 Act comes into force servants or agents would be entitled to limitation of liability if the contracting carrier and the actual carrier were different persons but not if they were the same person. That would be, I think, legal nonsense, and this is, therefore, an interim measure. Limitation of liability applies in both cases from the date at which this Bill comes into force, and that anomaly would be avoided. When Section 1 of the 1961 Act comes into force and The Hague Protocol is ratified this interim Measure under this Clause 4 will be spent. We do not know, as I have said already, which Convention will come into force first.
The remaining Clauses are on familiar lines. Clause 5 enables the Bill, if it becomes an Act, to be extended to British possessions and other territories by Order in Council. Hon. Members will see that that is in Article XVI of the Guadalajara Convention. Subsection (2) enables the Government, by Order in Council, to apply it to carriage which is not international carriage. My example was London to Turkey, Turkey not being a signatory of the Warsaw Convention.

Clause 6 provides that the Act shall bind the Crown, which, of course, is a big provider and user of air carriage. The 1961 Act did the same. I notice that there was some debate on that Act about signing "blood chits". This would make that no longer necessary.

Clause 7 provides for citation of the Act, which would come into force by Order in Council on the day which the Guadalajara Convention comes into force by ratification.

I hope I have sufficiently clearly explained the meaning of the Bill. I have already referred to the Schedule and the Convention. We can, of course, reject this Convention, but I hope that we shall not. I hope that by passing the Bill we shall give a lead to other countries in bringing into effect a business-like Measure which will give protection to the travelling public in their rights in the event of accident and will also clarify the situation for those who take part in air travel by organising holiday tours and so forth particularly, and also in respect of the consignors of cargo, relieving them of any doubt as to their legal position in future.

11.32 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I wish, first, to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) both on the researches he has obviously made in connection with this Bill and on the enterprise he has shown in bringing it forward. I am sure that the House is grateful for the speech he has made. I wish to say only a word or two about the Bill as I think it may affect the general public and the travel business.
When I first looked at the Bill I was interested in the bracketed words of the Title "(Supplementary Provisions)". I

was not sure whether this referred to extra Government expenditure on refreshments we get from time to time when we travel by air, or to the air hostesses who so delightfully serve us whenever we go by international air carrier. I was glad to find that neither of these two excellent extras were to be cut out by the Bill.
I must declare an interest in this debate, because I own a travel business. I am quite sure that anyone who is active in the travel business, which has grown tremendously in recent years, would agree that no travel agency which was worth its salt would want to escape from any responsibilities which may be imposed by this Bill.
Any agent who is also a contracting carrier as defined by the Bill will find both a limitation—on liability—and an extension in so far as it may apply to him for the first time. As my hon. Friend said, this Measure must be taken in conjunction with the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, which repealed and replaced the Carriage by Air Act, 1932. In fact, its origins go back a long time before that.
I was interested to find that the first international conference on air cooperation took place in 1925. That seemed a remarkably early example of international co-operation and also of forward looking by our forebears on the kind of developments one could expect in air transport which have taken place over the last twenty-five years to a remarkable extent.
The international co-operation which has taken place has done a great deal for the development of air travel and the peaceful pursuits of air transport. The travel industry has always followed the Warsaw Convention in this country as it has in many other countries. That Convention laid reasonable liabilities on carriers and has contributed considerably to increased standards in the air and increased air safety.
It is a remarkable thing that many more people are killed on the roads than are killed in the air. Yet whereas an air crash can put people off flying, road crashes do not seem to put them off driving cars. This, I think, is perhaps because people have a peculiar nonchalance about their safety when they


are driving themselves. When they are being driven they are a great deal more cautious. They are much more sensitive to the possibility of an accident when someone else is in control.
It is important that the public should know that a responsibility rests on carriers, whether they are air companies or contracting carriers who are employing air companies. The safety of the passenger must be permanent. It is also reasonable that passengers, as they are now, should be safeguarded against the careless loss of or damage to their luggage. It is very upsetting to arrive on the other side of the world and find that one has only one suit and no pyjamas. In fact, that seldom happens.
I sometimes think that our railways could take a leaf out of the book of the airlines and copy their efficient and up-to-date systems of dealing with luggage. The railway system is rather old-fashioned in this regard and has hardly changed in my lifetime, whereas the airlines, coming new on the job, have evolved a system of luggage carrying and documentation which means that seldom do we find passengers inconvenienced by the loss of their belongings.
The Guadalajara Convention supplements the Warsaw Convention. I suppose that it serves any travel agent right that its owner should have to pronounce a name like that. I must congratulate my hon. Friend on keeping his pronunciation of it correct all the way through his speech about the Bill. At least, I assume that it was correct, because I am no more sure about how to pronounce it than is anyone else.
The Guadalajara Convention together with the Warsaw Convention in so far as these Conventions are given effect to by this Bill provides both an extension of and a restriction of liability. The extension is from the common carrier, so-called, to the contracting carrier. The Bill will limit the amount of liability on carriers to the amount which is laid down by the Warsaw Convention, which, as my hon. Friend indicated, has now been amended by The Hague Protocol, although that Protocol is not yet actually in operation.
Most people take out an insurance policy when they are travelling by air. It is right that they should do so. It

is surprising, however, how many are not aware that the air carriers have a responsibility under these Conventions and that that responsibility is ratified through the 1961 Act. In the event of any unfortunate disaster, international airlines cover their passengers, but, as I have said, it is wise, and, I think, necessary for anyone travelling by air to take out extra cover.
The term "travel agent" is not mentioned in the Bill. However the term "agent" is. I suppose that inasmuch as the Bill and the Conventions deal with matters of travel one might say that where "agent" is mentioned "travel agent" is implied. The term "contracting carrier" would obviously cover some travel agents and carriers together and also separately, and it would probably have to be decided in the courts whether a travel agent was or was not a contracting carrier. Clearly, no reliable agent contracting equally with another common carrier on, for example, charter arrangements—which have grown tremendously in the last few years—could or should want to escape responsibility.
I said at the beginning that the Bill furthered international co-operation in the air. There is no doubt about that. It crosses the Iron Curtain. I repeat my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon, who takes a great interest in these matters, on introducing the Bill. I believe that it will contribute in a small way to an extension of holidays by air from which will come greater pleasure for the growing numbers of people who travel by air visiting other countries. There is nothing better for international co-operation than that this practice should be extended across the world, that our people should visit other countries and that overseas visitors should come here by air.
We frequently discuss export prospects. It is very often forgotten that we gain a great deal of income from foreign visitors who come to this country. This helps our balance of payments. If this movement grew, we should find our international account much easier. If the Bill contributes towards visits between countries and the exchange of good will on vacations, then it will have


contributed, as have the two Conventions, to increased peaceful co-operation among the peoples of the world. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.

11.43 a.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: It is sometimes complained that private Members do not have facilities for bringing Bills before Parliament, but my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) seems to have produced a most complicated Bill in an absolutely first-class way. There is very little for us to say because he has explained the Bill so well. Indeed, the Bill itself is self-explanatory. It is rare for one to be able to give wholehearted support to a Measure which is brought forward on a Friday, but I think that on this occasion everyone welcomes the Bill and wishes to congratulate my hon. Friend upon the extraordinarily clear way in Which he presented it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) said, aircraft carriage is something which crosses every barrier. However, there are always slight gaps in respect of legislation and international rules, and the Bill seeks to fill a gap. I am sure that everybody will welcome it.
The Convention to which reference has been made seeks to rectify one aspect where two carriers are involved. In the modern contracting business, very often one contractor makes the contract but a number of others carry it out. This is becoming increasingly so because of the number of aircraft companies which are in business and the number of charter companies which are all the time coming forward. Hon. Members, and certainly those on this side of the House, are always very pleased to see independent charter companies coming forward and undertaking very important services for the public. But we are also very keen to ensure that they should in no way escape their liabilities when carrying passengers on charter flights.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford said about insurance. The public are perhaps not aware of the rights under existing international conventions. They often feel, when they board an aircraft, that there is no insurance

whatsoever to cover them. But I believe I am right in saying that there are many clauses in existing legislation and other provisions which enable a private individual to sue a company or carrier in the event of damage or loss being sustained.

Mr. John Cronin: Perhaps I might point out, since we are dealing with small companies, that sometimes an aircraft crash leads to the dissolution of a company and there are often no assets whatsoever with which to award compensation if there has been death or injury. Therefore, the position is not quite as satisfactory as the hon. Member suggests.

Dr. Glyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment. I know that that is the case. I believe that I am correct in saying that there have been cases in which a company has been found to be one of straw.

Mr. K. Lewis: Mr. K. Lewis rose—

Dr. Glyn: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment, because he knows a great deal about this.
I would just add that I believe that there is machinery which enables members of both the tourist industry and the carrying industry to make ex gratia payments.

Mr. K. Lewis: I believe that the Air Traffic Licensing Board is very careful to ensure, when it awards a company the right to fly to a certain place, that it is not a company of straw, which would not be able to pay adequate compensation. I believe that this matter has been tightened up, as the Minister may show later, and that that is a very good thing. I should not like it to go out from this House that rights in respect of routes are given to airlines which would not be able to meet compensation claims in the event of something disastrous happening. I do not think that that would apply now.

Dr. Glyn: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, because he has cleared up a point about which there was some element of doubt.
The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) is, on the other hand, correct in saying that there have been cases of the type to which he referred and


that people have not received compensation because the company has gone into liquidation and there have been insufficient funds available.
There is also the matter of the French text prevailing. I am rather interested in this point. This is probably one of the first occasions on which this has been mentioned in the House. It is likely to be increasingly mentioned. If, as we hope, we shall soon become part of the Common Market, I have no doubt that the House will have to ratify many items from treaty arrangements and it may well be that in certain cases the language of a certain country must prevail so that there shall be no ambiguity in the courts about the correct interpretation of a clause or rule.
I am sure that the House will give the Bill its Second and Third Readings. I again welcome this opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon upon a first-class Bill and the way in which he has presented it.

11.50 a.m.

Mr. John Wells: I, too, would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) both on his luck in the Ballot and on the excellence of the Measure which he has brought before us. However, unlike him and other hon. Members who have preceded me, I hardly venture to get involved in the great technicalities of the Bill, and would merely like to look very briefly at it from the point of view of the man in the street, to whom the Warsaw Convention and the Guadalajara Convention are strange and foreign matters.
As I see it, this Bill is an excellent Measure from the point of view of the ordinary man in the street, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) said, more and more people are going abroad for their holidays every year. There is a vast upsurge in air traffic of all sorts, and, therefore, it must be very welcome to the man in the street to know that a back bencher has been able to bring in what appears at first sight to be a highly technical Measure which will be of great benefit to the ordinary person.
I agree with what hon. Members said earlier in reference to the excellence of the baggage arrangements throughout

the aircraft systems of the world. Many of us would wish that our own internal railways could match that efficiency in handling luggage. We have all heard many disturbing stories from constituents about episodes with luggage and small parcels, and we would welcome the modern approach to this problem of the aircraft industry.
As was said by my hon. Friend in introducing the Bill, Clause 4 is purely interim, and we appreciate that, but if my hon. Friend asks the leave of the House to speak again, I should be grateful if he would clarify what he said about Clause 6. I thought he said that this would have the effect of some method by which people would sign "blood chits" on particular aircraft, and I should be grateful if he could amplify that point either now or later.

Mr. Neave: Perhaps I could answer my hon. Friend now. There used to be a custom, in which some of us were involved in flying in Service aircraft, when we used to sign what were called "blood chits", under which the authority carrying us would be indemnified against any damage to us for personal injury. That will not now be necessary, because the Carriage by Air Act, 1961, binds the Crown through the Warsaw Convention, and carriage by the Crown will include carriage by Service aircraft. This Bill has the same provision.

Mr. Wells: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for clearing up that point.
The other matter to which I should like to refer is the great work of the British insurance industry, as a provider of what are generally called invisible exports in this country. The aircraft section of the British insurance market is an extremely important section of that industry. I welcome the Bill if, in any way, it will ease the rules and make things simpler for these people, who, I believe, are doing a very valuable job for our country, both in the commercial and in the social field in providing the safeguards which have been referred to on both sides of the House already. This is most important, and I think that we should all welcome it.
In yesterday's debate on the aircraft industry in general, there were various references to civilian matters. I feel that the British aircraft industry and the whole flying outlook of the British people


are on the brink of a great change. We are becoming more air-minded. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford said that when the ordinary man goes on an air journey, he normally takes out an additional insurance policy. I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend. I myself am an ordinary man, and travel by air fairly frequently, and I am ashamed to say that I have never yet taken out an extra insurance policy for these occasions, putting all my faith in the ability of the carriers and their agents who have booked me. Therefore, I feel that we are to have a new look in this matter.

Mr. K. Lewis: May I point out to my hon. Friend that by his failure to take out extra insurance he was undervaluing his value to his constituents?

Mr. Wells: I think we have had enough by-elections lately.
This Bill will have far-reaching effects in a quiet way. We hope that it will proceed through all its stages. From the point of view of the ordinary man, we weclome the great expert knowledge which my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon has brought to this subject, and I should like to thank him for it.

11.56 a.m.

Mr. John Cronin: We have so far had a very interesting debate on this Bill, and we are very fortunate in having available speakers who have a particular expertise on the subject.
I should certainly like to congratulate the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) on the very lucid way in which he has expounded his Bill. Most of us who have been familiar with his speeches when he was Under-Secretary of State for Air and Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation have grown rather accustomed to the high quality of his contributions, and he has been particularly helpful today, because this is a very complex matter indeed.
The Bill refers to three international conventions and to many points of international law. I must confess that when I first studied it, I found considerable difficulty in understanding it, but I had some help. I was fortunate enough to obtain the counsels of a very responsible

and progressive organisation known as the Society of Labour Lawyers, which advised me on it, and I also had the help of a very well-known international lawyer, Mr. Andrew Martin. I should also like to express my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation for the very courteous help Which I have had from his Department in explaining the meaning of some Clauses which were not quite clear.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) was, perhaps, a little premature in congratulating the hon. Member for Abingdon on his pronunciation of the word Guadalajara. I have some advantage over him, because I have one of those prevailing infections of the throat which enables me to pronounce it more correctly for that reason.
This seems to me to be a very useful Bill, which fills several gaps in our legislation. Obviously, it was very desirable that the failure of the Warsaw Convention to define a carrier satisfactorily should be put right, and this will remove a good deal of uncertainty by airlines and underwriters regarding their position as to liability if there is an accident. It is also very advantageous to passengers and shippers to have some certainty of recovery of compensation or damages if they should be the victims of an acident, and again this Bill will help in the prompt settlement of actions that are pending as a result of any accidents that occur. From my professional experience I know that a great deal of psychological harm is done to victims of accidents who have to wait a long time before their cases are settled. The Bill goes some way to help in this respect.
Also, the Bill will lead to a substantial reduction in costs in some oases. This will be of advantage to the general public. Although I regard my hon. and learned Friends, and hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, with considerable affection, I feel that it is desirable that costs should be reduced on every possible occasion in the interests of the general public.
I am glad that travel agents who are not themselves principals will not be affected by the Bill. The Bill will affect travel organisers particularly. Some of us on both sides of the House have felt a good deal of concern at the number of, so to say, "mushroom" travel organisations which have arisen recently.
Since the war, there has been a tremendous increase in prosperity and many more people are travelling abroad than ever before. The vast majority of travel organisations are thoroughly reputable and excellent firms deserving of en-encouragement in every way, but there are some which do not give a satisfactory service. Hon. Members will probably be familiar with some of them.
I received a letter recently from a most respected constituent, a lady who is a former Conservative mayor of Loughborough, who wrote in the strongest terms of what had happened to her on a holiday, for which she had employed a somewhat obscure firm of travel agents.
The Bill will be very helpful in making quite clear to travel agents that they are responsible for what happens during the conveyance of their customers by air.
I am glad that the Bill makes certain that an airline still remains liable if it transfers passengers to another airline for some purpose or another. There is a growing tendency for airlines, particularly some of the independent and foreign airlines, to transfer their passengers to another airline when a difficulty arises. Often, this practice results in very unsatisfactory service.
We on this side of the House support the Bill, but, since it affects a very large number of people in a most important way, it is right that I should ask some questions and comment on it. In the first place, it is good that the Bill does not give the impression to the general public that there is any great risk in travelling by air. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford did a service in pointing out that a very large number of people are killed or injured when travelling on the roads and that the proportion of people killed or injured while travelling by air is negligible in comparison.
It is most unfortunate that, whenever there is a serious air accident, the details receive widespread publicity, and sometimes accidents are described in the more irresponsible newspapers in lurid and, at times, quite untruthful terms. It is a favourite "gimmick" of the newspapers to talk about an aircraft having exploded in the air when no such thing has happened.
This kind of reporting does a considerable disservice to our own aircraft manufacturers

when competing in the world's markets. However, I will not advert to that subject further. It is very desirable that the general public should realise that the risk when travelling by air is very small indeed.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) drew attention to Clause 1 (2) of the Bill and expressed doubt about the French text prevailing when there is any doubt in the legal interpretation of the Bill. This is very unusual. When the Carriage by Air Bill was being debated in 1961, our former colleague, Sir Geoffrey de Freitas, now High Commissioner for Ghana, expressed some concern about it himself. It obviously lends itself to difficulty when British law must depend in certain circumstances on a French text, but I assume that there is no way round this so long as we have international agreements.

Mr. J. Wells: It is not all that unusual. I was merely seeking information when I intervened in my hon. Friend's speech. There are very reputable precedents for it.

Mr. Cronin: I agree. It is a matter of what one means by "unusual". Taking the average run of High Court cases, one has to depend on a French text once in a million times, I should imagine. It does not seem very desirable, but it is a penalty that we must accept for taking part in these very desirable international agreements.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The Warsaw Convention itself is in French and, therefore, any modification would have to be in the same language. That is the explanation, I think.

Mr. Neave: There never was an English text.

Dr. Glyn: Yes.

Mr. Cronin: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn). All I am saying is that this is a necessary evil which we must accept, though, perhaps, French scholars might not agree with that way of putting it. It seems undesirable, but it is something which we must accept and I raise no further complaint about it.
Clause 3 (1) refers to Article XXI of the Warsaw Convention where there is a limit of liability of 250,000 francs for


each passenger and 250 francs per kilogramme for the cargo unless there has been a special declaration as to the nature of the cargo. Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what the present situation is? What is the present limit of liability, and is it likely to be changed? Perhaps he would be good enough to tell us in simple English sums which we can understand. The hon. Member for Abingdon referred to this, but I was not quite clear what the present situation is, apart from what might happen if his Bill becomes law.

Mr. Neave: It would be a very good idea if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us how he envisages the situation under The Hague Protocol. These limits have been altered under The Hague Protocol, which has not yet come into force. We debated this in detail on the Carriage by Air Bill, and, of course, my Bill does not cover the question of limitations, but I think it is very important to know.

Mr. Cronin: I am glad that I have the hon. Gentleman with me. No doubt, the Parliamentary Secretary will address himself to the point.
Clause 3 (2) fills a gap left by The Hague Protocol in that it provides for the same limitation in respect of servants of the carrier. This is desirable because there is always a possibility that a prospective litigant would sue the servants rather than the carrier for the purpose of avoiding the disadvantage of limitation.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us when the ratification of The Hague Protocol is likely to come into full force? I understand that it requires 30 countries to ratify it and that so far 21 have ratified it. It would be helpful to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has had some liaison with his colleagues in the Foreign Office and has found out what the situation is. What is the likelihood of The Hague Protocol being ratified, and when is it likely to be ratified? That is important because so much of the Bill depends upon it. I understand that the Guadalajara Convention has so far not had any ratifications and requires five. I should be grateful for some information on that.
Clause 6 makes it clear that the Bill will bind the Crown. Clearly, when someone is carried by a carrier who is an employee of the Crown or an agent of the Crown, for instance, Transport Command of the Royal Air Force, under the Bill the Crown will be bound to pay compensation to the limit dictated by the Warsaw Convention of The Hague Protocol. If there has been negligence and if the victim of the accident can prove it, he can clearly now sue the contractor concerned under ordinary common law and receive compensation without any limit in accordance with the verdict of the court. What is the position with regard to the Crown in that respect?
If one of us were to travel in an aircraft of Transport Command, we would probably be obliged to sign a declaration saying that Transport Command was not liable. I presume that in these circumstances, if there were an accident, and if negligence could be proved, the unfortunate hon. Member could not take common law proceedings against the Crown with any hope of success. If that is so, it is scandalous. There is no reason why hon. Members should be subjected to these risks and yet compelled to divest themselves of their common law rights by signing a declaration of that nature.
I now turn to Article VII of the first part of the Schedule. The second sentence is much the same as Order XVI(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Judicature. It says:
If the action is brought against only one of those carriers, that carrier shall have the right to require the other carrier to be joined in the proceedings, the procedure and effects being governed by the law of the court seised of the case.
That is completely coincident with the Rules of the English Supreme Court of Judicature, but what is the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland where there are completely different judicial systems? It is with some trepidation that I speak on behalf of Scottish or Northern Irish Members, but I cannot see them here in substantial force today, so perhaps it is only right that someone should raise these points.

Mr. J. Wells: Surely that would refer to Clause 5 (1).

Mr. Cronin: That refers to precisely the same point I mentioned.
Another difficult issue concerns hovercraft. I do not think that so far there has been satisfactory statutory definition of hovercraft and the Ministry of Aviation, which is rather deliberate in its movements in these matters, has not taken any decision to regularise the legal position of hovercraft. It would be very helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us some assistance about what will be the situation if a hovercraft is involved in an accident when carrying passengers or goods covered by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Clapham quite rightly pointed out that there are occasions when an airline which is carrying passengers and suffers an accident is unable to meet its liability. I think that he would agree that that has happened in the past. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford hastened to assure the House that the Air Traffic Licensing Board would not grant a licence unless it was satisfied that the airline concerned was in a position to meet its liabilities. What is the position when the airline is registered outside the United Kingdom? In that case, it does not have to receive a licence from the licensing board. I think that the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford, who has vast experience in the travel business, will agree that it is becoming increasingly common for airlines to be registered outside the United Kingdom and yet to carry passengers from the United Kingdom to some other country. One comes across cases which are somewhat alarming. One occasionally hears of airlines which take passengers by ship and train to a second country and then embark them in aeroplanes to disembark them in a third country. This enables the airlines, if they wish, to evade numerous safety regulations. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what is the situation if there is an accident concerning an airline which operates outside this country? How will it be affected by the Bill?
I come to another matter about which I have some feelings of delicacy—the question of compulsory insurance. From the back benches last year, I introduced a Private Member's Bill—it was my first and probably my last—in which I endeavoured to obtain compulsory insurance for motor cyclists. I recollect that there was such a strong and multitudinous

expression of disapprobation on behalf of the motor-cyclists that I found it desirable to move a Motion to withdraw the Bill, and I think that hon. Gentlemen received copious correspondence on the matter. I would not like hon. Gentlemen to think that I have some idiosyncratic obsession about compulsory insurance. In fact, it is a subject to which I am allergic and try to avoid. But I feel that there is some case for some statutory compulsory insurance for airlines or anyone who carries passengers by air.
I understand that at present a carrier is under no obligation to take out any insurance against risks, other than third party risks. Admittedly, we have some protection from the Air Traffic Licensing Board, but there is no permanent protection, and it seems to be that it would be a simple matter to write this into our laws by means of a Statutory Instrument. It could be done by means of a simple Order. I should like the Minister to give us his views on this point. Is his Department sympathetic to the idea of some form of compulsory insurance against accidents, or is it unsympathetic?

Mr. K. Lewis: Surely compulsory insurance is unnecessary. If an airline is found liable, it has to pay damages, and, in any case, in practice most of them are covered by insurance.

Mr. Cronin: I agree that, in practice, most airlines take our insurances, and I also agree that, obviously, an airline would have to pay the amount for which it was found to be liable by way of damages, but it all depends on the ability of the airline to pay. This is the important point. In recent years we have had several instances of the airline concerned going into liquidation after an accident and being unable to meet its obligations.
This is not to be taken lightly. No harm could be done if some simple statutory arrangement were made to have this provision written into our law. For instance, it would be simple to bring in an Order that no carrier should be able to invoke the limiting provisions of the Convention unless he had insured himself comprehensively. This would be a simple addition to the Bill, or, alternatively, it could be dealt with


separately, and would do nothing but good.
Clause 5 extends the provisions of the Bill to British possessions and overseas British territories, but this Clause will be applicable only if the Minister introduces the Order referred to in subsection (2). It would be helpful if the Minister could give us some idea whether he intends to introduce such an Order at an early stage to enable this helpful Bill to apply to British possessions.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The hon. Gentleman gave a good example of carriers when he said that one could start a journey by sea, and then travel by air to a third country. Would not he agree that the Bill applies equally well if one travels to Paris on a B.E.A. return ticket and comes back on an Air France plane? The argument does not apply in respect of both these air lines because they are well insured, but under the international agreement one can change one's air ticket to any line, and therefore on a simple thing like going to Paris the provisions of the Bill would apply.

Mr. Cronin: The Bill would seem to apply in a case like that, but it is doubtful whether it would apply to an independent air company which was registered outside the United Kingdom, and plied entirely outside the United Kingdom, but none the less for the purpose of carrying passengers from the United Kingdom to some other country.
I have been obliged to ask numerous questions. I hope that the hon. Member for Abingdon will not regard this as being in any sense hostile to the Bill, because I think that it is a useful Bill and will make a desirable addition to the laws of our country. Nevertheless, I think that the points I have mentioned should be looked into, and that we should have some satisfactory answers from the Minister before the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: As we are all so friendly, may I help the hon. Gentleman before he resumes his seat? To save him receiving perhaps an indignant letter, no doubt because of a slip of the tongue he said that he had received a letter from a

lady whom he described as a former Conservative and an ex-mayor of Loughborough. I think that what the hon. Gentleman meant to say was an ex-mayor of Loughborough and a Conservative. This correction may save the hon. Gentleman a lot of trouble and worry.

Mr. Cronin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that correction.

12.28 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation (Mr. C. M. Wood-house): I join in the congratulations offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) for having introduced this useful Measure. In spite of the fact that he said he had given up the law, I think I should call him my hon. and learned Friend.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on his pronunciation of the Spanish word in the Bill. I shall try to avoid using the word, and in any case I accept the hon. Gentleman's pronunciation of it. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the many points that he raised on the advice of that progressive organisation the Society of Labour Lawyers, and other equally progressive sources which he may have consulted in preparing himself for this debate.

Mr. Cronin: I should mention that the hon. Gentleman's Department also briefed me extremely well.

Mr. Woodhouse: Thank you.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon, I hope that the Bill will enable us to set something of a record in the speed of ratification of an international convention. As my hon. Friend said, the Convention was signed in September last year, and I doubt whether we have ever or shall ever again get through such business so quickly. It may seem at first sight a rather unnecessary hurry, especially as the consequence of the speed, as my hon. Friend pointed out, has been to make the Bill necessarily rather complicated. The complication is due to the fact that it has to be equally applicable to two different situations, either of which could be in force at the time applicable, that is, before and after the ratification of the Hague Convention which has preceded it.
The hon. Member for Loughborough asked if I could give any indication of the timing of the numbers of ratifications in respect of the two Conventions. We expect the Convention with which we are dealing today, the Guadalajara Convention, to be completed before the end of this year. Indeed, we hope it will be as soon as possible within the year. The other one, The Hague Protocol, which needs a larger number of ratifications, is in our view unlikely, for reasons touched on by my hon. Friend, to be ratified by the necessary number of countries before next year. It is perfectly possible for the requisite number of ratifications of The Hague Protocol to take several more years. That, of course, is a contingency which we would regret but fox which we have to be prepared in the case of the present Bill.

Mr. Cronin: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for intervening, but I think it is rather distressing news that The Hague Protocol may be held up for several years before ratification. Can the hon. Gentleman give us some reasons for this rather dismal prospect. I seem to recollect the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) speaking about some difficulties with the United States. Could the hon. Gentleman tell us something about these difficulties, because normally we have the most friendly and agreeable relations with that country and it would be unfortunate if that country were causing them?

Mr. Woodhouse: It is the case, as my hon. Friend said, that the United States is having some difficulty of a legalistic kind in deciding upon the ratification of The Hague Protocol, and it is quite possible that some other countries are delaying their ratifications in order to await the United States' decision. I would hesitate to go into the legal technicalities of United States law in this matter and the problems of American internal thinking, but I should like to add that when I speak of the possibility of a delay of several years it is in our view an outside possibility and that we have a real hope that the difficulties will be overcome by next year. But we have to be prepared for every contingency, and that is why the Bill is introduced now and why it is of a somewhat complicated character.
Of course, if the ratifications of The Hague Protocol took several years, then one of two things would happen without the Bill. Either there would have to be two Bills, one before and one after The Hague Protocol came into effect, or else we should continue to have during th interim period a confused situation with a recognised and important ambiguity in the interpretation of the unamended Warsaw Convention. That ambiguity has admittedly lasted for thirty years, but now that attention has been drawn to it—and the point of the Guadalajara Convention was to eliminate it—it seems to us that the sooner it is eliminated the better.
The drafters of the Convention accordingly went out of their way in the text of it to make it applicable both before and after The Hague Protocol came into effect, leaving individual member countries to follow suit accordingly. We feel that my hon. Friend is right in having framed his Bill, particularly the first subsection of the second Clause, to produce that same result. It means that if the Bill is passed, as we hope it will be, the date on which the country ratifies the Guadalajara Convention will not be tied in any way to the date on which The Hague Protocol is ratified.
It will not matter which come first, the thirty ratifications of The Hague Protocol or the five of the present Convention. What this means, in practice, is that if we ratified the Convention forthwith, which we shall be able to do once the Bill is passed, and the Convention comes into force ninety days after the fifth ratification, there is good reason to hope that it will not be very long before the new Convention is applied by most of the countries parties to the Warsaw Convention. We feel that the resulting clarification of that important Convention can do nothing but good and that it is in the interest of all those concerned with carriage by air, whether they are the carriers or the carried.
I should like to make two brief points on the speed with which this Bill is being pushed through. First, I have confirmed, as I thought would be proper, with the two national air Corporations that they see every advantage in having the Convention ratified as quickly as possible from the operators' point of


view. The second reason for speed in the matter is that now that the Convention exists and the ambiguity in the Warsaw Convention is no longer latent but has been brought out into the public eye. This could during the interim period provoke litigation arising from the ambiguity.
No litigation has arisen in the past from the ambiguity, but, of course, once the ambiguity is publicly seen there is a danger that litigation might be started. It is our purpose in these matters to reduce and not to provoke litigation. Moreover, such litigation if it occurred in the interim period would, we have good reason to believe, be settled on different and diametrically opposed principles in different countries according to which court was approached. I need hardly emphasise how highly unsatisfactory that would be for everyone in the aviation world. Now that the matter has been brought into the open, it seems to us that the sooner it is cleared up and dealt with the better.
Now a word or two about the effect of the new Convention in amplification of my hon. Friend's account of it. Briefly, the effect will be to interpret the Warsaw Convention, when two carriers are involved, in the sense which will be in the interest of the passenger or the consignor in each case. Thus, it will relieve the passenger of having to prove negligence against either carrier. Indeed, either carrier, if he were sued, would have to bear the burden of disproving negligence on his own part and on the part of the other carrier if he wished to avoid liability.
The Convention will also allow the user to make his complaints and give his instructions to either carrier, the actual or the contracting carrier, and it will allow him to take action for damages against either carrier or both and to do so before a court having jurisdiction where either carrier is ordinarily resident or where he has his principal place of business. In other words, it enables the plaintiff both to choose his target and the court in Which he attacks it. Neither carrier is allowed to escape or reduce his liability by contractual contracts.
All this sounds rather hard on the carrier, but in return he gets a very important

advantage, which is the limitation of his liability. There have been cases in the courts in recent years which have shown that the carrier, including in some cases the travel agent when he enters into a contract as a principal, is in certain matters subject to unlimited liability, and the travel agent, in so far as he is acting as a principal in a contract, should therefore welcome the Bill which will have the effect in certain respects of reducing his liability.
The hon. Member for Loughborough and others have asked me to indicate the present position about the level of liability. It is still a limit of £3,000 as applied by the unamended Warsaw Convention. For international carriage it will go up to £6,000 when The Hague Protocol is ratified. For non-international carriage it will be necessary for us to place an order in due course before the House, and there will then be an opportunity to debate that point.
It is largely because the new Convention deals with all these various issues, in what we consider to be a very enlightened way, that the Government hope that the Bill will meet with approval and will make early ratification possible.
I shall try briefly to deal with a number of inquiries which have been addressed to me, particuarly by the hon. Member for Loughborough, but I think he will excuse me if I ask to be allowed to leave some points to a later stage of the Bill, when I shall try to give satisfaction on every point.
The hon. Member asked about the liability of the Crown, which is covered by Clause 6 of the Bill. The answer to his question, if I understood it aright, is that under Article 25 of the Warsaw Convention, which will be applied to the Crown by the 1961 Act, the Crown would be subject to liability without limit, like any other carrier, in the case of wilful misconduct, if it could be proved against the Crown. Under both Acts, the position of the Crown will be no different from that of any other carrier. I think that takes care of the point which the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. Cronin: I am not sure if it is still the practice when being carried by the transport force or some similar organisation for the hon. Members to be obliged to sign a declaration that they realise that the transport force has no


liability whatsoever. If it is, obviously it is important to know how that is affected as regards common law liability in the event of an hon. Member meeting with an accident.

Mr. Woodhouse: I am sorry but I do not know if it is still current practice. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon who referred to it, can enlighten the House.

Mr. Neave: I think that it is covered by the 1961 Act, which binds the Crown, but that Act has not yet fully come into force. In principle the necessity of signing a special document excluding liability should no longer be necessary if the 1961 Act and this Bill had the force of law.

Mr. Woodhouse: I think that is a correct statement of the present position. I hope that we can leave it to be confirmed at a later stage of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the applicability of the Convention to Scotland and Northern Ireland. This highly recondite point is being investigated now and we shall be able to provide the answer at a later stage of the Bill, but our present impression is that it will be applicable to both Scotland and Northern Ireland without entailing any amendment of their rules of court.
In referring to Clause 5 (1), which the hon. Gentleman had in mind, I might in passing draw attention to the exception set out:
… except so far as it relates to United Kingdom trust territories.
In case hon. Members wonder why there should be such an exception, the answer is that there are no longer any United Kingdom trust territories.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the legal status of hovercraft. This is, as he knows, still a debatable matter and has not been settled by legislation. No doubt that will be necessary in due course. It appears under the existing law that carriage by hovercraft is likely to count as carriage by air for the purpose of both the 1932 and the 1961 Acts and, therefor, for the present Bill as well.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the question of compulsory insurance. This question was raised by several hon. Members, including the

hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis), and the point was made that it is closely connected with the financial status of companies operating aircraft. We have in the past considered the desirability of compulsory insurance. On balance, we have concluded that it is not necessary. This conclusion was endorsed by the first report of the Air Transport Licensing Board which pointed out that no case was known to it in which anyone had failed to recover damages as a result of a company involved in an accident lacking insurance. This makes the question of the financial standing of the operators one of the greatest importance.
I think that I have told the House before, that the question of the financial standing of operators in this country is one which is very much exercising the Licensing Board at the moment. It is one of the things it is obliged to take into account in issuing licences. It is paying particular attention to it now. The Board in its first year of operation withdrew a small number—I think it was three or four licences—purely on the grounds of the inadequate financial standing of the operators.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will have in mind the status of foreign operators. I should not like the House to think that we regard foreign operators as in any way falling below the standards of our own operators, given that the international regulations under the Chicago Convention of 1944 apply to all operating countries alike. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when my right hon. Friend is considering issuing licences to foreign operators to carry British traffic he applies exactly the same criteria as are applied by the Licensing Board to British operators, and that if he had any doubt of the standing of the operator he would, as a matter of course, take it up with the Government of the country concerned. We do not believe that British travellers are in any way jeopardised by being carried by foreign operators to whom, of course, the provisions of this Bill will apply whether or not the countries of which they are nationals are parties to this Convention. That is clearly set out in the text of the Bill.
I have perhaps not succeeded in covering all the questions raised by the bon.


Gentleman, but I assure him that if there are any that I have overlooked they will be taken care of at a later stage.
I should like to add one further point on a matter raised by several hon. Members, and that is the peculiarity of scheduling the text of the Convention to the Bill in French. It is a little unusual as has been pointed out. I think I am right in saying that there are still on the Statute Book in this country Acts of Parliament in French, although I believe the most recent of which that is true was passed in 1439. It is, as hon. Members have said, something exceptional today, but there has to be a prevailing language in the ultimate settlement of any dispute arising from am international convention.
As the Warsaw Convention was in French, and in French alone, it logically follows that French should be the prevailing language, but this need give rise to no difficulty. I should like to assure any hon. Members or lawyers who, in the matter of French, belong to the Stratford-atte-Bowe Group, that they will not have to conduct their cases in French, and that, in the very unlikely event of a dispute arising over the meaning of a word, there would be expert legal support to turn to. But we see no reason why it should ever arise at all, although provision has to be made for this unlikely event. As the hon. Member for Loughborough pointed out, there is no way round it. He called it a necessary evil. I agree that it is necessary, but I hope that it will not be found to be an evil. The same principle was followed in the 1961 Act, and it flowed simply from the fact that we can only accept or reject the Convention in toto. We cannot amend it. I hope that we shall accept it.
No doubt there are some questions of detail which hon. Members will wish to raise in Committee, but I hope that they will not hesitate to give the Bill a Second Reading. As we all agree, it is a helpful

Measure which will serve to reduce still further the need for litigation on questions concerning international carriage by air. That is in the interest of almost everybody—of passengers, of consignors, of airlines and of insurers.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) said, our insurers underwrite a very large volume of the world's air traffic. We hope that this will grow. It will grow even further if people generally take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford and my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) of extending their own personal insurance.
Indeed, I think that the Bill can be regarded as a good wind which will blow nobody any ill, with the possible exception of the lawyers, progressive or unprogressive, because they will not be getting as much business as they might have had from litigation in the past. I notice that none of these has chosen to take part in the debate. I do not wish to suggest that they are likely to take a narrow view on what everyone else regards as a valuable Measure. I hope that I can safely commend the Bill to both sides of the House.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. Cronin: With the permission of the House, I should like to say a few brief sentences. The Parliamentary Secretary has given a very helpful and lucid explanation. In view of what he said, I can say on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we see no objection to the Bill and, in fact, commend it to the House. It may well be that if it reaches the Statute Book it will require some further Amendment when it is brought into operation, but as far as we can see, on present information, it is a very desirable Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

LOTTERIES AND GAMING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

12.54 p.m.

Mr. John C. Bidgood: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I should like to clear up one or two misunderstandings about the Title which has been jocularly attached to the Bill by the Press, some of whom have referred to it as the "Bingo Bill". I hope, during the course of my remarks, to explain the wider aspects of what the Bill seeks to do and to convince right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that bingo represents a very small part of the object of the Bill.
Secondly, I want to make it clear that I am wholly opposed to any extension of the present gambling laws. There is no extension in the Bill beyond the permitted bounds of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956 and the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960.
I am somewhat fortified in bringing the Bill forward by the fact that the Churches Council on Gambling has written to me to say that it does not oppose the Bill. I am authorised to quote a letter which I received from the Council the other day in these terms:
This Council's Executive Committee has considered the Lotteries and Gaming Bill and has decided to make no effort to oppose it. This is simply because it appears to be a logical measure, following the judgment in the Huddersfield Club case. If the Bill becomes law it will enable people to do what it was generally thought they could legally do before under the existing Acts.
The Huddersfield case and the judgment in connection with it was Payne v. Bradley and others in June of last year.
I shall have more to say later about this ruling in the House of Lords, but while I am on the question of the Churches Council on Gambling I wish to take this opportunity of commending to the House a report, which the Council has just published, on the working of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, written by the Rev. Gordon E. Moody. I should like to quote from page 7 of his report, in which, in connection with the 1956 Act, he referred to the discussions

in another place during the Second Reading of that Act in these terms:
Lord Douglas of Barloch noted that not only charitable societies but others whose objects might in fact be quite uncharitable and quite detrimental to the community would be in a position to hold lotteries. There was little or no discussion at any time in the Parliamentary debates into what constitutes private gain. There is no definition of it and the nature of the society that should benefit is too loosely defined.
The primary purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to define what is meant by private gain and to reverse the ruling of the House of Lords in June of last year. The ruling concerned the Huddersfield Friendly and Trade Societies Club, which is a working men's club. The club had been in the habit of organising tombola, bingo and other games, and the profits were paid into the club general fund. They were used to finance various social activities of the members and to provide facilities for members.
It is well-known in the House that lotteries are illegal, with certain exceptions. One exception is covered by Section 4 of the 1956 Act, which provides that if proceeds, after paying expenses and the cost of prizes, are devoted to
purposes other than purposes of private gain,
the lottery is lawful.
The Huddersfield club acted in the belief—a very widely held belief—that this provision of the 1956 Act would permit the appropriation of the proceeds to the general purposes of the club. Lord Goddard, Lord Morton and Lord Guest, in their ruling—I quote from Lord Goddard at page 291 of the ruling—held that Section 4 of the 1956 Act did not allow the application of proceeds to the purposes of a club, and if the proceeds were paid into the general fund of the club it was held that
the club, and that means the individuals forming the club, do obtain a private gain.
This view was not held by Lord Denning and Lord Morris, who maintained that Parliament intended the words "purposes of private gain" to denote
the direct benefit which accrues to an individual when money goes into his own pocket or money's worth gets into his hands, as distinct from the indirect benefit which accrues to him as a member of a society or club.
As a result of the House of Lords decision the conditions laid down by


Section 4 of the 1956 Act cannot be fulfilled, and I am sure that the House would like to see that position remedied. If a club organises a lottery for the benefit of club funds, that lottery is at present illegal under the ruling given by the House of Lords.
To reinforce this point—Section 4 of the 1956 Act implemented a recommendation contained in paragraph 419 of the Royal Commission on Betting, Lotteries and Gaming, 1949–51, that whist drives organised for the support of local institutions should be made lawful. The conditions laid down in that Section are those recommended by the Commission. Briefly, they mean that the element of gaming must be small, and it seems reasonable that clubs should be permitted to organise games, lotteries etc. in support of their funds. It is the purpose of the Bill to enable them to do so.
I now turn to the provisions of the Bill. It is virtually a one-Clause Bill. Clause 1 (1, a) covers Section 23 of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934. This subsection exempts from the general prohibition lotteries promoted incidental to an entertainment, such as a bazaar, sale of work, fete, dinner, dance, or a sporting or athletic event. Paragraph (b) covers small gaming parties, including whist drives, bridge drives, bingo, and so on. At present, Section 4 of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, is inoperable as a result of the House of Lords decision.
Paragraph (c) covers several provisions of the 1960 Act, which intended to permit gaming machines in such places as golf clubs and social clubs for the support of club funds, and the giving of prizes at bazaars and sales of work, etc. One result of the Payne v. Bradley ruling has been to show that the 1960 Act did not achieve this purpose.
Subsection (2) is included merely because Section 1 of the 1956 Act is drafted rather differently, and drafting considerations make this subsection necessary. Subsections (1) and (2) are designed to enact that the proceeds of the various activities promoted on behalf of a society or club which are applied for any purpose calculated to benefit the society as a whole shall not be held to be applied for purposes of private gain by reason only that their application

for that purpose results in benefit to any person as an individual.
In other words, if proceeds are applied to club funds in the case of a nonproprietary club there is no infringement of the present Acts. The Bill has no application to proprietary clubs, and it is not intended that any provisions should go beyond what is laid down. If that were not the case it might be possible for the proprietors of these proprietary clubs to gain from their activities.
Subsection (3, a) is designed specifically to avoid infringement by payment of the proceeds into an account separate from the proprietor's account. But for this subsection a proprietor could open a special account—which might be called a members account, controlled by the members—and pay certain of his profits into that account, thereby indirectly benefiting himself. This subsection makes that impossible. Proprietary clubs are, therefore, excluded from the operation of the Bill.
If the matter were left there, the Bill would not apply to sporting clubs, such as golf clubs, some of which are technically commercial undertakings. Consequently, subsection (3, b) extends subsection (1) to include societies concerned with athletic sports or games.

Captain Walter Elliot: I cannot follow my hon. Friend's argument entirely. As I understand it, he says that the Bill does not apply to proprietary clubs. I am not clear what he means by that. I have in mind something like the Calcutta Club Sweepstake, which used to raise large sums of money. Presumably that club benefited to a considerable extent from that sweepstake, and if such a club ultimately went out of existence I presume that the assets would not belong to the members. There might be considerable profit in that.

Mr. Bidgood: I do not want my hon. and gallant Friend to read more into the Bill than is intended. Its purpose is to reverse the House of Lords ruling in regard to Payne v. Bradley, to the extent that it affects the type of club which accounted for the ruling.
It would not be proper for me to try to define whether the Calcutta Club is a proprietary or non-proprietary club. The intention is that proprietary clubs


shall be excluded from the provisions of the Bill unless they are of an athletic or sporting nature. In any case, Section 1 of the 1956 Act lays down that such undertakings must register with the local authority. This provision remains.
I hope that the House will feel that no extension of gambling will be possible under the provisions of the Bill. In view of the support which it has from religious organisations outside, I commend it to the House.

1.9 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I apologise for intervening at this stage, but I do so because I regret that I shall have to leave before the debate is concluded or a vote is taken. My intervention will be very brief.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) on having made use of his good fortune in the Ballot by introducing this Bill, which, as he said, is designed to reverse and correct the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Payne v. Bradley. That decision, I might justly say, was very unexpected to all concerned. I have no doubt that it was correct in law so far as it interpreted the then existing statutes, but it produced a result which was contrary to what had been generally expected. That result can be changed only by an intervention on the part of the Legislature.
I very much hope that the Bill will be passed into law. As I understand the Measure, which the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to explain with such care and detail, it is intended merely to allow certain clubs and societies to use lotteries and gaming for raising funds in ways which Parliament and the public thought they would be able to do on the basis of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, and the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Bill is designed to benefit merely undertakings which do not exist for commercial profit. For that reason, it has been necesary for him, in drafting the Bill, to make special reference to those societies and clubs which engage in athletics, sports or games and which equally are entitled, we think, to hold lotteries as are clubs existing for social purposes and not for commercial profit.
In case any hon. Members have doubts about the matter, I should inform the House that I have received a letter about the Bill from the Churches Council on Gambling. The Council took a very keen interest, as you will recall, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in the passage of the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960. While it does not wish to encourage gaming, it has asked me to say that it does not oppose the Bill, because it makes the law read in the way that the Council and everyone else understood it to read.
At the same time, it is right to observe that, contrary to the expectation of the Government and of Parliament when the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960, was passed, it appears to some of us that small, night gaming clubs, and bingo clubs have found a loophole in the Act and are making money commercially out of gaming in a way not contemplated when the Act was passed. I will not elaborate on that now. If we wish to tidy up and try to give effect to the intentions of Parliament, however, it is a matter which should be considered in the context of this Bill.
I support the Bill and commend its Second Reading to the House.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): Since the hon. Gentleman has been courteous enough to say that he will have to leave, may I explain that I propose to intervene in the debate later and I hope to be able to convince the House that the Bill will not lead to easier conditions for the running of commercial bingo clubs.

1.15 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I remember reading, a considerable number of years ago, a paper called "The Confusion of Chance" to a society to which I belonged. The problem which always faces those who seek to legislate on these matters is the considerable confusion which still exists, although something has been done in a number of Acts to make that confusion less.
I support the Bill and wish to confirm that in no sense does it, or should it, increase the facilities for either gaming or lotteries. Having been lucky enough, in 1955, to introduce a Private Member's Bill on this subject and to have taken part in the discussions on the 1956 Act, I should like to say a word or two about those Measures.
Section 4 of the 1956 Act, dealing with small gaming parties, was not in the Bill as it was originally drafted. It was introduced during the Committee stage. Now, as a result of the operation of the 1960 Act, Section 4 has been very much cut about by repeals and other Amendments.
It is because it is so important that enactments on lotteries and gaming should be reasonably clear that I query the form in which the Bill is drafted, although I am satisfied that without doubt its objects are good.
I wish to refer to part of Lord Dunning's judgment in the Payne v. Bradley case. In referring to Section 4(1) of the 1956 Act, he said:
Under that Section an entertainment can be held for raising money to be applied for purposes other than private gain.
Previous to that, he had said:
References to other Sections seem to me to show that the Legislature has throughout used the words 'purposes of private gain' quite consistently so as to denote the direct benefit which accrues to an individual when money goes into the pocket or money's worth gets into his hands as distinct from the indirect benefit which accrues to him as a member of a society or club by reason of the improvement of its accommodation or amenities which he shares with other members.
I should like, first, to deal particularly with the amendment of Section 4 of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, concerning small gaming parties contained in Clause 1 (1), which states if the
proceeds of any entertainment … on behalf of a society to which this subsection extends which are applied for any purpose calculated to benefit the society as a whole shall not be held to be applied for purposes of private gain by reason only that their application for that purpose results in benefit to any person as an individual.
I submit that there is a serious danger of that being read as giving an individual an opportunity to have some benefit without destroying the whole position that arises because of the society being one which is run without private gain. In other words, it seems not impossible to have a position where a person can succeed in gaining profit without destroying the protection that is given to an organisation which is not concerned with private gain.
Probably the distinction ought to be drawn much clearer than it is between

direct benefit to an individual and indirect benefit to individuals as an association. I would like, in consequence, to have seen, in amendment of Section 1 of the 1956 Act, words which more clearly define that distinction. I suggest that the point might be covered by amending the 1956 Act by adding such words as:
A society otherwise included within the provisions of this Section shall not be excluded therefrom under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) (in so far as it relates to private gain) only because monies raised by any lottery might indirectly"—
the essence is that the word "indirectly" should appear there—
benefit the members of such society individually if the money so raised is applied bona fide to the general purposes of the society.
The expressions "indirect" and "general purposes" of the society seem essential for the easy understanding of what the Bill is seeking to do. That should also apply in regard to amending Section (1) of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956.

Mr. Bidgood: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall be happy to discuss these matters with him before the Committee stage.

Sir E. Errington: I am pleased to hear that and I hope that there will be an opportunity to do so. But I think that it is important to emphasise that one must not add to the confusion of the legislation on this subject, and that the Bill will require extremely careful drafting. Though I do not pretend to be a very skilled draftsman, I am not happy about the way in which Clause 1, particularly subsections (1) and (2), has been drafted really covers the position.
I think that this may well lead to a situation where there may be individual gain under the cloak of the society which is protected because it is essentially not for private gain. If consideration is given to these matters, and the Bill receives a Second Reading, as I am sure it will, consideration must also be given in detail to the other Sections of the 1934 and 1960 Acts referred to in Clause 1 (1). It is essential, in these matters, for careful consideration to be given to drafting to ensure that it is intelligible and clear beyond doubt, because one's experience in these matters


is that they are a fruitful ground for legal actions as well as loopholes for evasion. I am sure that, if words could be found, this would be a most valuable Bill, but I am not happy with it as it stands at present.

1.25 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) on utilising his luck in the ballot to introduce a very sensible little Bill. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said there were doubts about the meaning of the words. On the face of it, I should have thought that they did carry out the object intended. I agree that this matter should be examined very carefully in Committee to see that there is no loophole to make the law even more doubtful than it is at present.
I gather that the intention is to put into effect what Parliament intended to mean by the words "private gain". Reference has been made to the case of Payne v. Bradley, which certainly illustrated that different meanings can be put upon these words. It is interesting to see how our judges differ with regard to this.
The Huddersfield justices—I do not know how many of them there were—and then three judges in the divisional court, including the Lord Chief Justice, held that they were unable to give the meaning to the words the appellants sought to give—that private gain only occurred when money went directly to the benefit or gain of an individual or individuals. They could not accept that contention. The judges were very strong in their judgment. The Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said that, in every sense of the word, the money was being paid to the private gain of the society and of the individual members.
Fortunately, under our new procedure, we were able to get further opinions on that, because the divisional court certified that there was a point of law of general public importance and gave leave to appeal to the House of Lords. This was one of the first such cases under the new procedure. The Law Lords upheld the decision of the lower courts, two of them disenting. Reference has already been made to Lord Denning's judgment. I would, however, like to emphasise one

or two things he said. They are most important in considering this matter.
Lord Denning pointed out that none of the profits went into the pockets of individual members of the club. They went to help the club to pay its way. It was a working men's club which was established according to these rules:
To afford members the means of social intercourse, mutual happiness, mental and moral improvement and rational recreation.
Those are all very worthy objectives.
In his judgment, a very careful and reasoned judgment, Lord Denning went through the various Sections where these words "purposes of private gain" were used, and he did it, I think, in order to try to show what was the meaning which the Legislature sought to attach to those words in a similar context. He argued that the references showed that the words "purposes of private gain" were used quite consistently—his words have have been quoted and I refer to them again—to denote the direct benefit which accrued to an individual when money went into his pocket or money's worth got into his hands, as distinct from the the indirect benefit he gained as a member of the club in the improvement of its accommodation or amenities.
Certainly that seems to me to be the common-sense view and the view which the Legislature intended when these Sections in the various Acts which have been referred to were enacted. If the words are to be read as meaning that when a club engages in tombola or bingo or a like entertainment in the circumstances as in the case of Payne v. Bradley that constitutes an illegal act, clearly that ought to be put right, and put right as soon as possible, and I am glad that the hon. Member has sought in this Bill to put it right, and I very gladly support it.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I, too, should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) on his choosing this very valuable Measure for a Private Member's Bill today and on the way in which he has presented it to us.
As has already been said, all of us who were members of that Standing Committee which deliberated in 1960 the Betting


and Gaming Bill for some considerable time did get the impression that what we were doing was to make it possible for a bona fide club like a working men's club, a British Legion club, and others, to run lotteries like tombola and to use gaming machines—as I understood it—in the club and to take the profit which they made for the benefit of the club as a whole. It came as a considerable surprise to us to find that the House of Lords, in that appeal which has been mentioned, took an opposite view.
I do not want to make many comments about the Bill itself, but there are one or two points which I should like to have cleared up either now or at a later stage, and perhaps my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, when he replies to the debate, will be able to clear them up for me.
The first one concerns the position of non-members of a club taking part in a lottery. It seems to me that under Section 16 (7, c) of the 1960 Act for non-members lotteries are permissible provided nobody takes part who is not either a member or a bona fide guest of a member. So it would seem to me that a member could bring in any number of guests and that they could take part in bingo or other lotteries being held in the club. What I should like to know is: what is the position of the gaming machines in such circumstances? Because it is said in Section 17 of the 1960 Act that Section 16 does not apply to gaming machines.
It would seem, on the face of it, to a non-legal mind, that a member can bring in guests and participate in housey-housey and gaming of that kind, and that that would be perfectly all right, but if the guest were to use the gaming machines it would not be right.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), I have some doubts about the last line of Clause 1 (1). It was the practice at one time—no doubt it was illegal, but it was done—for these machines to be installed in clubs and elsewhere, and the owner of the machines took so much out of them and maintained them and the clubs took their share out of them as well. My hon. Friend's Bill, as I understand it, would make it perfectly proper for a club to take the proceeds of these gaming machines, and that would not be termed private gain.
What I am wondering about is the last line of Clause 1 (1), which says that the proceeds
shall not be held to be applied for purposes of private gain by reason only that their application for that purpose results in benefit to any person as an individual.
Could that possibly provide a loophole for someone to install a machine in a club and take a cut out of it, as he used to do illegally? I do not think that it was intended in the 1960 Act that they should do that. It may be quite a small point, but I think that it is one which might lead to complications if it is not cleared up either today or at a later stage of the Bill.
It was just those points on which I felt I should like to make a comment. I once more congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done. I feel sure the House will give this Bill a Second Reading, and I hope it will be on the Statute Book before very long.

1.36 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I shall intervene only briefly, first to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) for the Bill and for choosing to try to rectify this unfortunate decision in Payne v. Bradley. Of course, the House of Lords had to stick to the law, but it was unfortunate that that decision was arrived at and we all want to see the matter rectified.
After hearing what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) said, I am slightly worried about the wording of the Bill. When we passed the 1960 Act we thought that we were passing a Measure which could not give rise to a decision such as that in Payne v. Bradley. I am, therefore, slightly worried lest the terms of the Bill possibly give rise to similar difficulties. I would ask my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State to let us know whether the Home Office has given very serious consideration to any legal loophole which there could be under the Bill.
We are all right behind the Bill. We are all in favour of it, I am sure; but I hope that, if there are any slight difficulties because of the drafting, then in Committee my hon. and learned Friend will be able to correct them and help us in that matter, so as to make sure that, when the Bill is finally passed,


as I am sure it will be, there are no errors in the drafting which could give rise to a further case such as Payne v. Bradley.

1.38 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: I, too, welcome the Bill and thank my horn. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) for his good work in bringing it forward, and congratulate him on his luck in the Ballot.
Several hon. Members have expressed surprise at the result of Payne v. Bradley, and I cannot help feeling that we may possibly have some surprises arising out of this little Bill.
The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) referred to the loopholes which we have seen following the 1960 Act. To my certain knowledge a number of hon. Members have observed various gaming clubs in London. Indeed, I believe Chat some hon. Members here are members there, but other hon. Members here have visited clubs Which have flourished as a result of the 1960 Act and have expressed very great doubts about the wisdom of allowing any substantial increase in gaming and gambling in this country.
There is grave disquiet among churchmen of all Churches about the great increase in gambling. The hon. Member for Islington, East very properly referred to a letter he received from the Churches Council on Gambling, or a Church body which said that it had no objection to make to the Bill. I have no objection to the Bill. As I say, I welcome it, but in common with my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), I am worried about the potential loopholes. I have seen the loopholes which have arisen from the Bill introduced two years ago. Many people-not only Members of Parliament and, indeed, not only churchmen, but people in all sections of the Community—are very worried at some of the side effects of the 1960 Act.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East to give him an assurance that there would be no increase in commercial bingo arising from the Bill. That is excellent. I am glad that there can be no increase in commercial gambling under the Bill,

but one cannot help wondering what will happen in cases such as briefly outlined in his interjection by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot).
There could be set up a large and substantial club for purposes which would be acceptable to the Bill, a sporting club or social club, a members' club—mot a proprietary club—and then that club might be wound up. I can see the "wide boys", if I may use such a phrase, all over the country taking advantage of that. There may be the Little Puddlecombe Tennis Club which may flourish for twenty-four hours and run a profitable lottery. Then it would be wound up and the proceeds, unfortunately not enough to make a hard court, would be distributed among the half-dozen members.
I see nothing in the Bill to stop that. We might have a flood of ephemeral sporting clubs. I do not know whether my hon. Friend who is promoting the Bill would agree to give me an assurance on this point. I see no protection of it.

Mr. Bidgood: I am happy to intervene to say that this Bill is not intended to give that protection. The protection is already afforded by the 1956 Act.

Mr. Wells: That may well be so, but surely if it is a club which is set up and operating perfectly legitimately under the 1956 Act and then fades out, there is no objection to the surplus fund being distributed among the members if that is the general practice.

Sir E. Errington: The 1956 Act applied to small lotteries. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) has mentioned large lotteries and the possibility of winding up a club and collecting large sums of money. The 1956 Act dealt solely with small lotteries and small gaming parties.

Mr. Wells: I am grateful to both my hon. Friends. I am well aware of the 1956 Act, but let us go back to the mythical Puddlecombe Tennis Club with half a dozen members.
The members hire the vicar's tennis court, but, in fact, never play tennis. They get a fund going in order to make themselves a tennis court—this is possible—and they run a series of small lotteries, the more the better, and the


funds grow and become very substantial as a result of £10 or £20 lotteries. This is by no means beyond the imagination of the "wide boys". If a simple soul like myself can think it up in ten minutes, I am sure that the "wide boys" could think up far wider measures.
I am not trying to carp at the Bill. I make quite clear that I welcome its provisions wholeheartedly, but I express this genuine and very sincere doubt of many people that here may be yet another vehicle for cunning people to find loopholes in existing legislation on gambling.
I must go on, in my welcome to the Bill, to say how delighted I think all organisers of charitable and very well worthwhile causes will be at the introduction of the Bill. I am aware of the difficulties of the British Legion and of many church fetes, and so on, which have operated small lotteries. They will welcome these provisions. Therefore, I congratulate my hon. Friend.
I think that all people concerned with small local charitable organisations will be glad of the work he has done, but I hope that between now and Committee stage—I most sincerely hope that the Bill will reach the Statute Book-he will look at potential loopholes and have serious conversations with my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State.

1.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Renton): I wish to join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood) in his success in the Ballot and the good use he has made of it, and also on his lucid introduction of his Bill. It deals with a single and rather small point, but a point of considerable importance to many social and sporting clubs throughout the length and breadth of the country.
This phrase, "purposes other than private gain" first appeared in Section 23 of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934. It was repeated in Section 4 of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, and, as the use of the phrase had not given rise to any doubts or dfficulty during the previous twenty-six years, we used it again in the Betting and Gaming Act, 1960

where, as has been pointed out. it occurs in Sections 17, 20 and 23.
Section 23 of the 1934 Act authorises raffles and so on—raffles are one example of a lottery which otherwise would be illegal—at bazaars, sales of work, fetes and other entertainments of a similar character. Its purpose was to implement the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Lotteries and Betting in 1933 that lotteries should be allowed at such functions to help to support the charity. It is a condition of such raffles that the proceeds should be devoted to, "purposes other than private gain".
I have looked up the debates on that Measure and so far as I can find it never occurred to anyone in Parliament in 1934 to inquire whether this phrase would cover the raising of money to help the general funds of a club. The opportunities given by section 23 of the 1934 Act have in practice been widely used since 1934 to hold raffles at fetes organised by clubs in aid of their general funds and the lawfulness of such action has never been challenged in the courts under that Act.
When Mr. Ernest Davies, whom many of us remember, introduced the 1956 Bill, he openly declared his intention that small lotteries, legalised by Section 1, and small gaming parties, legalised by Section 4 of the Act, should be used to raise money for the benefit of club funds. That expressly declared intention was accepted on both sides of the House. It was the intention that such funds should be covered by the phrase, "purposes other than private gain." During the debate on that Measure, Government spokesmen did not cast any doubt on the point whether the words achieved that intention.
As I say, we used the phrase in three separate contexts in the 1960 Act, and in doing so we never doubted for one minute what "purposes other than private gain" meant. We were quite clear in our minds that there was to be no element of commercial profit or any financial benefit of a direct kind to any individual.
My recollection of the debates on the 1960 Measure—I have not looked through them all again because, as one of the Ministers responsible for piloting the Bill, I hoped that they were


still sufficiently fresh in my mind—is that we had no discussion of the meaning of that phrase and all assumed that there could be benefit to the general funds of a club or society.
However, we have now had the decision of the House of Lords in Payne v. Bradley that the phrase "purposes other than private gain" does not permit the raising of money by a club for its general funds by means of the activities covered by Section 4 of the 1956 Act, because that was the provision which their Lordships were interpreting in deciding the case of Payne v. Bradley. Although only that provision was dealt with in that case, the decision affects the meaning of the words wherever else they occur in this branch of the law.
As one of the Ministers responsible for piloting the 1960 Act, I must tell the House candidly that the decision of the House of Lords took us completely by surprise. As the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) put it so mildly, it was an unexpected decision. The House will readily understand me when I say that we had all along assumed that this phrase, which had remained unchallenged for more than a quarter of a century, seemed pretty clear in its meaning.
It is not the first time that the final court of appeal in this country has found that in law words used by Parliament mean something different from what they were understood to mean by Parliament when it wrote them into a Statute. When that occurs, it means that Parliament must either reconcile itself to the words bearing an unexpected meaning or else find some other phrase which will carry out its original intention. That is the purpose of the Bill, as my hon. Friend has so clearly stated, and we feel that it is a sensible purpose and one which will enable the original intentions of Parliament to be fulfilled.
Misgivings have been expressed about two things, however. One is whether subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 really fulfil the intention which we all have in mind. The other has been about the growth of bingo and the possibility that the Bill might increase the opportunities for playing that game or for making a profit out of it. I will deal with each of those matters in turn.
First, with regard to the purely drafting point, I certainly do not wish the House to feel that anything that I say about the drafting is in any way final. This is clearly a matter that we should have to consider further in Committee, but I felt that it might be helpful if before the Committee stage hon. Members could have the Government's view on this rather difficult drafting point. I acknowledge that it is a difficult drafting point.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was, I think, a member of the Standing Committee which considered the 1960 Measure and will agree with me that many difficult drafting matters arose during our proceedings. I think that we all need to consider extremely carefully the drafting of anything in the law relating to gaming. It is a complex branch of the law which does not lend itself to easy definition in a way which with certainty covers the multifarious circumstances which can arise in practice.

Mr. Ede: I should be more helped if we had the advantage of the presence of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), who always appears to be able to give most dogmatic views on all these points.

Mr. Renton: Perhaps we shall have the benefit of his advice on a later occasion. I always welcome it.

Mr. Ede: So do I.

Mr. Renton: What subsection (1) of Clause 1 does in relation to the various activities covered by it and what subsection (2), in slightly different drafting form, does in relation to the one activity covered by it is to enact that the proceeds of any one of those activities promoted on behalf of a society which are applied for any purpose calculated to benefit the society as a whole shall not be held to be applied for the purpose of private gain by reason only that their application for that purpose results in benefit to any person as an individual.
Therefore, in the case of a nonproprietary club—I think we should deal with that first—if the proceeds are applied to club funds and used for the benefit of the members, there is no infringement of the requirement that they must be devoted to "purposes other than


private gain" notwithstanding that the individual members of a club receive indirect benefit. On the other hand, if the proceeds, or any part of them, are paid to an individual member or are used for the direct benefit of an individual member or group of members only instead of all the members, the Bill does not change the situation. There is then private gain, so that the condition of the relevant enactment is broken.
What it comes to is this. We are not abandoning the principle that "purposes other than private gain" means necessarily helping all the members, but we are trying to overcome the difficulty created by the judgment of the majority in the House of Lords, which said, in effect "When you help the funds generally, each of the members benefits individually. Therefore, there is private gain." We shall, no doubt, have to consider this further in Committee. I certainly undertake to keep in touch with my hon. Friend and to consult him and see whether by any means these words can be improved in their meaning. I must make it clear that the Bill has no general application to proprietary clubs. That brings me—

Sir E. Errington: Does not my hon. and learned Friend realise the importance of distinction and finding adequate words to distinguish between individual benefit and the benefit that is obtained by individuals in a general sense as members of a club? I submit that unless he gets that, there is bound to be constant trouble and constant difficulty. That distinction must be clearly made and clearly marked by words that are beyond any question.

Mr. Renton: I most certainly accept what my hon. Friend has said, and I had hoped that in my explanation I had drawn the very distinction which he has now expressed.

Sir E. Errington: My hon. and learned Friend absolutely drew the distinction, but my submission is that this distinction is not drawn in the Bill.

Mr. Renton: I take my hon. Friend's point, and I think it is important that the Bill should express that distinction. This is a technical matter, and, naturally, I shall take advice upon it. So long as we understand each other in that we are

aiming at getting that distinction clearly expressed in law, it is a question whether the drafting does so or not.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Would my hon. and learned Friend deal with the point concerning machines owned by outside firms; in other words, the case where the machine is being maintained by somebody outside? Although the majority of the profits are going to a club or institution, there is a certain amount of money which will be paid to the firm owning the machine.

Mr. Renton: I would not like to give a snap answer to that point. It is a point I should like to consider.
May I now turn to the question of the growth of bingo. I said just now that the Bill has no application to proprietary clubs. Of course, it follows from that that the Bill does not affect the circumstances under which the so-called commercial bingo is played today. In considering this matter, we need to make a clear distinction, on the one hand, between the large-scale, so-called commercial bingo, played in proprietary clubs organised for this purpose and played under the powers given and the opportunity provided by Section 16 of the 1960 Act, and, on the other hand, bingo which is played at small gaming parties under Section 4 of the 1956 Act. This Bill has nothing at all to do with commercial bingo clubs, and, to that extent, there need be no fear that it will lead to an increase in bingo.
I make no comment on the merits of bingo as a form of entertainment, except to say that I have on rare occasions played it myself, and I frankly say that I found it a very dull game indeed.

Mr. Weitzman: Did the hon. and learned Gentleman win?

Mr. Renton: I cannot remember whether I did. I should think that my patience was exhausted before the end of the game. I think that is most probable, but I found it a very dull game. One takes note of the fact that a very large number of people seem to find it entertaining; I cannot think how. Whether they find it profitable is a matter for them to decide. It has the advantage that it gets people together in large numbers in respectable, orderly circumstances, and one has no complaint about that.

Mr. Weitzman: Sometimes they win.

Mr. Renton: It is, however, a game played in other circumstances as well, even more respectable and even more orderly, when it is played in small gaming parties under the 1956 Act, and, as I hope is now clear, the Bill will remove any doubt as to the legality of such games if the profits are to be used for the general funds of the society promoting it.
It is important in this connection to bear in mind the conditions under which such parties are held, because they include not only the condition that the proceeds must not be used for private gain, but there is also a requirement that only one payment, not exceeding 5s., may be made by each player in respect of all the games played on any one occasion. There is another requirement that the prizes distributed may not exceed £20 in value. It has generally been assumed by Parliament, and, speaking as a Home Office Minister, I take this view, that within these limits, bingo is not likely to be harmful, socially or to the individual.
I do not think that anyone could seriously say that bingo should be for-bidden altogether, and, certainly, the method of organising it at a small gaming party does less social harm than its commercial organisation, under which very much larger sums of money than 5s. as a stake and £20 as a reward can be lost or won. Therefore, although the Bill extends the opportunities for playing bingo on the strict conditions under which it is allowed under the 1956 Act, the extension of bingo which thereby takes place is essentially harmless.
May I now deal with one or two detailed points which I have not covered in the course of my remarks? My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson), who, I know, has taken a great interest in this subject over the years, asked me about the effect of the Bill on Section 16 (7) of the 1960 Act, which, if I remember rightly, deals with the bringing of guests of club members to gaming taking place in a club within the provisions of Section 16. I must tell him that the point he has made does not arise in connection with this Bill, because the

Bill does not deal with that Section at all.
My hon. Friend asked me a question about gaming machines under Section 17 of the 1960 Act. It is a requirement that the public shall not have access to premises on which gaming machines are installed, and my hon. Friend asked me if this requirement would be contravened if guests are introduced by the members of the club. I have to tell him that this is a matter for the courts in the circumstances of the particular case in which it might arise, but it would seem that the introduction of bona fide guests in a proper manner would not involve the admission of the public.
I was glad to learn that the Churches' Council on Gambling does not oppose the Bill. I think that is the attitude that would be expected from it, because, in spite of its well-known views about the menace of gambling and its understandable opinions on it, it is a fact that many thousands of pounds have found their way into the funds of the churches by means of legally-conducted small lotteries.

Mr. James MacColl: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is being a little unfair to the constituent bodies of the Churches Council on Gambling. Very few members would approve of gambling by churches, either in Nonconformist or Anglican churches.

Mr. Renton: That may well be the view held by individual members of the Council. Such views do not necessarily correspond with the practices adopted by the Members of the churches throughout the country, and I think that one must be perfectly candid in saying that at many church and chapel fêtes and bazaars and the like opportunities are afforded for the somewhat innocent forms of lottery which are allowed by Statute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clap-ham (Dr. Alan Glyn) asked about the taking of a cut by the manufacturer from the takings of a gaming machine. I should like to consider this, and I shall get in touch with my hon. Friend.
I have spoken at some length. I have done so only in order to try to enlighten bon. Members on points which they


raised and on which I felt that they would wish to have an answer from me. The Government regard this as a Bill to which the House could safely give a Second Reading. It will have the advantage of clarifying the law once more, we hope, and I do not think that any social danger can possibly arise from it.

2.11 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The House is grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State for having given us the official view on the Bill. The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells), who attempted to complete that part of his education which was neglected at Eton, asked whether we could have words which would not be misconstrued. If we ever arrive at that state—

Mr. Weitzman: I should be out of a job.

Mr. Ede: —large numbers of people who are now drawing large incomes would become unemployed and unemployable.
It is a pity that this matter has arisen. Undoubtedly, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee which considered the Betting and Gaming Bill in 1960 tried to arrive at definitions in these matters which appeared to meet the needs of ordinary common-sense people. The problem caused by the decision of the House of Lords sitting as a judicial tribunal must give us ground for grave misgivings, for the commonsense view of the words which were put in the 1960 Act, which also are thrown into doubt

by that decision, was reached after the most careful consideration.
In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), both worthy exponents of commonsense views on these matters, I am not at all sure that I have much more certainty than has the hon. and learned Gentleman himself that we shall ever be able to arrive at a form of words which will not be misconstrued by somebody. I fear that we may be pursuing a chase which has no end. However, the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Bidgood), who introduced the Bill, is to be congratulated on selecting such a Measure and on the effort he is making.
I only hope that, after not too long a Committee stage—I see grave difficulties in even achieving that—we shall be able to put on to the Statute Book a Measure designed to say in language which only lawyers can misunderstand exactly what the House means and what, I am convinced, the ordinary people of this country wish to have said. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the assistance of the Minister of State in this matter and that we shall be able to do something which, for a few years at least, will enable people to enjoy bingo within the law and have their enjoyment without difficulties of the kind which have lately confronted them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

2.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
At this comparatively late hour on Friday, and because I hope very much that other hon. Members will be good enough to speak on the matter, I propose to be very brief. It is easy to be brief, because this is a simple and modest and, I hope, a non-controversial Bill.
At the outset, I express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the advice he has given me and for certain suggested alterations which I have incorporated in the final draft. The object, summarising it very briefly, is to ensure that every tenant has a right to know the identity of his landlord. I hope that, in addition to embodying this main principle, the Bill will go some way towards tidying up the law in regard to this rather vexed question of relationships between landlord and tenant and the giving of information by the landlord, because the law is at present in a state which might almost be described as chaotic.
Hon. Members on opposite sides of the House disagree fundamentally about what is the best method of housing the people of this country, but most hon. Members on both sides will agree at least that housing is, perhaps, the most important of all the social services and that bad housing is a greater menace to health and happy family life than almost any other factor. For this reason, I feel very strongly that anyone who aspires to provide this essential social service in order to make money should not do so anonymously. If he evades his responsibilities, his identity should be known to the tenant whom he may be exploiting and to other people concerned, and, for that matter, to people not directly concerned, the general public.
A landlord should not look upon the ownership of dwelling houses in the same impersonal way as he might look upon other investments, merely as a means to obtain the maximum yield

from his invested money. I go so far as to say that I believe that a landlord should to some extent regard himself as being in the same position vis-à-vis his tenant as should a doctor to his patient.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present:

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: As I was saying, a landlord should not look upon his relationship with his tenant from a purely commercial point of view but rather from a human point of view. His responsibility should not be entirely shuffled off on to any other person, presumably an agent. By that I do not mean that a landlord ought therefore to be responsible for all the details of repairs and maintenance. Such work is much better carried out by a professional agent. But he should be personally responsible for seeing that his agent or other representative is carrying out that job properly.
We all know that there are good and bad landlords, just as there are good and bad tenants, but there are many landlords who just do not want to be bothered. The main requirement of their agent is that he should provide them with the maximum possible amount of rent and the minimum possible bill for upkeep, repairs and so on. Such landlords might rightly be described as bad landlords, but that does not necessarily mean that they are callous or unkind. I am sure that if many of them appreciated the discomfort and sometimes the squalor of the conditions in which their tenants live they would be only too glad to rectify matters. But what the eye does not see—and at times does not want to see—the heart does not grieve over, and in many cases the tenant is unable to draw the attention of his landlord to the uncomfortable conditions in which he is living because he does not know who he is and cannot find out, for the agent will not tell him.
But that is by no means always the case, and that is where lack of uniformity in the law is to be found. Let is consider the different types of tenant. We have the tenant who has a lease or written agreement. He knows well enough the identity of his landlord for he has it in black and white. The council house


tenant knows who his landlord is and can make his complaints and requirements known very easily to his local councillor, who is perhaps the most amenable landlord of all because he is elected by popular vote every three years.
On the other hand, when we come to the private landlord, again the tenant of a controlled tenancy has a full right to know the name and address of his landlord because they have to appear in the rent book. But that is not the case with the tenant of a decontrolled tenancy—and I refer here to the tenancy which has become decontrolled because it has changed hands since the Rent Act, 1957, came into force, or because it is a new tenancy or new letting—is in a different position. These are cases where we get what is often called creeping decontrol, a particularly inapt description. We should substitute the adjective "galloping" for "creeping", because in the four years since the Rent Act came into force there has been an enormous increase in tenancies which have been decontrolled in that way.
In these cases the tenant does not have the right to know the name and address of his landlord but only the identity of the person who is responsible for the repairs, normally the agent. Finally, we come to the case of furnished lettings where the tenant of a controlled or uncontrolled letting does not have the right to know the name of his landlord.
The law is equally chaotic about the penalties. The landlord of a controlled letting who does not supply the information required is subject to a maximum penalty of a fine of £50. The landlord of an uncontrolled letting which is, to use the words of the Act
occupied by or suitable for occupation by members of the working classes
is subject to a maximum fine of £2. The landlord of a furnished letting is subject to a maximum fine of £10. The penalties are entirely lacking in uniformity and the Bill seeks to regularise the position.
In the three cases I have been describing the landlord is not required to give the same information in each case. In the two latter cases he is not required to give his own name and address. The Bill would require a landlord to give the same information in every case, and the maximum penalty would be the same in

every case. In considering what the most suitable maximum penalty would be—and this is dealt with in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 4—I felt that it would be best to be guided by the Rent Act, 1957, which was the last occasion on which this question was considered. Paragraph 20 of the Sixth Schedule of that Act says that the maximum penalty should be £50, to which it had been raised from £10, and it seemed to me that the best maximum penalty to select would therefore be £50 for all these cases.
As with all housing legislation, there are many other housing Acts bound up with this Bill, and the Schedule lists three repeals which it is suggested should be made. These repeals are all parts of Acts which lay down the uneven penalties which I have been describing and the differing orders to landlords about the information which they have to supply.
I said that I would be brief. I do not want to go into the detail of all these cases and the Acts concerned, but I ought perhaps to say something more about Clause 3, about which I have had several queries. It deals with the question of the landlord when it is a company. The object of the Clause is to deal with all landlords on an entirely equitable basis, wether the landlord be an individual, a one-man company, or a company with a number of directors. The Clause lays down that at the request of the tenant the names of the directors and secretary of the company must be given.
Some people might say that the Clause is unnecessary because such information is available to any tenant if he knows how to get it. All that he has to do is to apply to the Registrar of Companies at Bush House and pay a fee of 1s., after which he will be allowed to go through the Register and get all the information that he wants. This may be all very well for most tenants, but it would be a formidable problem for the more humble and poorer type of tenant whom the Bill is designed to help. It might prove an almost insuperable problem for him if he happened to live in Penzance or Newcastle, because I do not think that this information can be obtained by written application. It can be obtained only on personal application at Bush House.


I hasten to add that because that information can be obtained at present by any tenant it is not a point on which I would wish to insist, and I am sure that if the House were prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading this could be dealt with in Committee.
I recognise that many hon. Members may think that the problem with which the Bill proposes to deal could be dealt with as well or perhaps better in other ways. I hope, nevertheless, that hon. Members agree with the principle of the Bill, and that the Bill is capable of successfully implementing that principle. In addition, I hope hon. Members agree that it will bring some order into the present chaotic condition of this aspect of landlord-tenant relationship. If hon. Members do feel that way, which I very much hope they do, I trust that they will allow the Bill to have a Second Reading and go to Committee.

2.33 p.m.

Mr. David Weitzman: I gladly adopt the usual formula and congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) on introducing this Bill. It is a short but proper and necessary Measure.

Clause 5 sets out the three categories to which the Bill applies. They are a dwelling-house to Which the Rent Acts apply; a dwelling-house the rateable value of which does not exceed £40 in London or £30 elsewhere; and a dwelling-house to which the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, applies.

Hon. Members must have had many cases of complaints from constituents about not having rent books, or, if they have them, the particulars being so incomplete that they do not know their landlords. Their rent books give the name of the agent, but every attempt to discover the name of the landlord is unsuccessful. It is only proper that the name of the landlord should be stated, that a rent book should be provided, and that all the particulars should be properly set out therein.

This is a good Measure, and I am glad to support it.

2.34 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I, too, congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central

(Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) on presenting this Bill. Indeed, I congratulate him on being here at all. It is most courageous of him, because I understand that unfortunately he recently bad a fall. It is most courageous of him to come and present the Bill today.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] My hon. and gallant Friend said that the state of the law was chaotic. That is putting it mildly. My hon. and gallant Friend went on to say that he wished to regularise the position. It is on this aspect that I must criticise him. I believe that the Bill as drafted might make the state of the law even more chaotic.
Perhaps I might deal with one or two points of the law and endeavour to show how the Bill would amend the law and perhaps improve the position, or fail to do so.
Under the Rent Acts at present it is necessary to provide a tenant who is paying a weekly rent with a rent book. This applies to property which is controlled. It is necessary to put into that rent book the name and address of the landlord. It is necessary in fact to put in a lot more particulars than that, and in passing I comment on the fact that in the Schedule to the Bill my hon. and gallant Friend proposes to repeal three Sections of three Acts which oblige a landlord to put a great deal of information into the rent book. My hon. and gallant Friend does not repeat that obligation in the Bill, and I wonder whether the repeals are accidental. I think that they must be.

Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux: Would my hon. Friend go on to say what those omissions are?

Mr. Page: I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily, but I call attention to the fact that under Section 6 of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1938, subsection 1 of which is very like Clause 1 of the Bill, the landlord is under an obligation to provide a rent book when the rent is paid weekly. Coupled with that Section of the 1938 Act are the regulations under the Rent Act, 1957, which set out the forms which are to be in the rent book.
Those forms require not only the name and address of the landlord, but a great deal more information about the conditions of the tenancy, the name of the


medical officer of health, the right to serve a notice of disrepair, and what the tenant can do in those cases. If the Bill goes through as it stands, by repealing Section 6 (1) of the Rent Act, 1938, my hon. and gallant Friend would be depriving the tenant of those rights. I am sure that he does not want to do that.

Mr. Weitzman: Cannot that be rectified in Commitee?

Mr. Page: I am endeavouring to discover how far the Bill goes in amending the law and, therefore, whether it is worth while giving it a Second Reading. I support the principle of the Bill, and perhaps I might make a few suggestions to show how I think my hon. and gallant Friend could have dealt with the situation better than he has in the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend again, but, dealing with the omissions he mentioned, I omitted the name and address of the medical officer of health because it appeared to be unnecessary to include it. Every tenant knows who is his medical officer of health. A tenant can get the other information to which my hon. Friend referred from his local Citizens' Advice Bureau, his Member of Parliament, or from anybody else. Nevertheless, I am willing to accept my hon. Friend's corrections. It may well be that these details should not have been omitted, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) said, this is something which can be put right in Committee.

Mr. Page: I am very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend. I am sure that it would be far better to leave the Rent Acts as they are in so far as this obligation is imposed on the landlord to provide the information. The same applies, of course, to the amendments which, apparently, my hon. and gallant Friend desires to make in his Bill to furnished lettings, because at present there is an obligation on the landlord to provide a rent book to the tenant of a furnished letting which is controlled and to put in it not only his name and address but also the terms and conditions of the tenancy. That, I think, is what my hon. and gallant Friend is repeating in one Clause of his

Bill. However, by the Schedule he leaves us in some confusion as to the extent of the obligation which he now desires to place on the landlord.
It is an obligation, according to the Bill, which in the case of rent-controlled property is far less than under the existing law. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend, if the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, will at least restore the position under the present Rent Act. The obligation of the landlord to provide his name and address on a rent book in the case of a rent-controlled tenant who pays his rent weekly is an obligation merely, I believe, to give the name and an address. It is generally accepted that the address of an agent is sufficient, and, indeed, under Section 7 of the Rent Restriction Act, 1938, the tenant can always, for the purpose of proceedings, require an agent to provide the full address of the landlord. Therefore, that power exists at present under the law relating to rent-controlled property.
As far as the property to which the Bill is intended to apply is concerned, when I turn to Clause 5 I find my hon. and gallant Friend sets out three categories of property. In the first category he sets out property which is subject to Rent Restriction Acts up to 1939. I am not sure whether he intends this to mean that the position shall be as if the 1939 Rent Act still applied, so that his Bill would cover property brought out of control in 1957. If he does intend that, he does not say so in the Bill. He says "to which those Acts apply" and not "to which those Acts did apply". This is a very major point in the Bill, whether it should apply to property of a rateable value up to £90 or £100, depending whether it is in London or elsewhere.
The second category applies to properties of a rateable value not exceeding £30 in the provinces or £40 in London. My hon. and gallant Friend explained to the House that in this category he was intending to deal with those properties which have come out of control since 1957 by reason of new lettings—what he referred to as the "creeping" or "galloping" decontrol. His third category concerns furnished lettings, which I should have thought were sufficiently covered under the existing law.
I am sure that by setting out those three categories in the Bill my hon. and gallant Friend is only making the issue far more confused than it is at present. It is certainly not clear (to what properties he intends the Bill to refer. Therefore, I return once more to what I said at the beginning of my speech. I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend is regularising what I agree is a chaotic condition. Like many before him, he has tied himself up in the knots of the Rent Acts. I will not say that he has tripped over the obstacles, because that, I think, would be an ungracious thing to say to him on a day like this, but he is perpetuating some of the troubles of the Rent Restriction Acts.
If it is right for a tenant to have the name and address of his landlord, why restrict it to the rent-controlled tenant? Why continue to tie this part of the law to rent control and to all the complications of rent control? It must surely be right for every tenant to know the name and address of his landlord if it is right for the rent-controlled tenant to have that information.
I wish to consider for a few moments whether that information is necessary, whether it is necessary in the Bill to place an obligation on the landlord to provide that information and whether the law does not already provide sufficient remedies to the tenant whether or not that information is given. There may be the case, perhaps, of the tenant who really does not know the name of his landlord at all. There may be no agent concerned and the tenant cannot obtain the name of his landlord. However, I should think that that was an exceptional case, but if such a case did exist I should not think that there was a contract at all. There must be parties to a contract. As I say, I very much doubt whether in that sort of case there would be a contract in existence at all.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I had a case in my constituency of a considerable housing estate which was bought by a gentleman who lived in Wales and who decided that he was not interested and would not do anything. The houses were literally falling down and the tenants did not know who the landlord was and could not get in touch with him. They were

houses of fairly recent date—certainly built after the First World War—but they were falling into decay, and the tenants were unable to find out who the landlord was ox to trace him by normal means.

Mr. Page: I should imagine that in such a case the tenants would be paying their rent to someone. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) shakes his head and implies that they were not paying their rent at all. Of course, one comes across cases where the owner is prepared to abandon his property. In those cases, in due course, the tenant would be able to get a squatter's title against the landlord. There are cases where tenants do not know who the landlord is, but surely there can be no contract of tenancy where one party is non-existent.
The usual case, against which my hon. and gallant Friend complains, is the case of—

Mr. Eric Fletcher: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that in those cases—and there are a great many of them—there is no contract, is he also saying that the tenant is not under obligation to pay the rent to anyone?

Mr. Page: If the tenant does not know who his landlord is, I should have thought not. Of course, he might perhaps be sued for mesne profits by the owner who eventually turns up, but surely there can be no contract of tenancy if one party to the contract is nameless.

Mr. Hale: Of course, mesne profits are assessed on rateable rent, so surely that is an academic argument, but if the landlord says, "I have come back from the Bahamas; I am sorry about these affairs, I am sorry that the roof is off", what happens?

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman is going into hypothetical cases, but I still contend that if one party is nameless it is very doubtful whether there can be any contract between the two parties at all. I think I am right in saying that that is not the sort of case which my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. He has in mind the case where there is an agent who stands between the tenant and the landlord. In such a case, what is the purpose in wanting the name and address of the landlord to be disclosed?


One might say that anyone is entitled to conduct his business by an agent. One can think of many cases in which there might be a very reasonable desire to conduct the business of letting and management through an agent. I cannot see any great objection to that provided there is someone who can be sued and it is possible to serve the necessary notices and the necessary legal process in order to bring action if the tenant is aggrieved at some course which his landlord has taken.
If the agent who has let the property, who manages the property and who receives the rent is the agent for an undisclosed principal, that is to say, he discloses his agency but not the name of his principal, he himself can be sued. There is someone against whom the tenant can take action and on whom the tenant can serve notices. If the agent is an agent for a named principal, I would have thought that there would be no difficulty in obtaining an order for substituted service under a legal process through the agent even though the agent may not have disclosed to the tenant the address of the named landlord. Wherever there is an agent, the tenant has a remedy against the landlord or against some person he can sue and make responsible.
Having pointed out that there is an ultimate remedy in these cases—an ultimate civil remedy—I would agree that it is not a protection in all cases. I do not think that we ought to go, as this Bill does, into the field of criminal law too far or lightly create new offences. The civil law can be far more effective in these cases than the criminal law. If we were to say that if the landlord does not provide the particulars which statutorily he is required to provide the landlord should be unable to recover the rent, it would probably be a far greater deterrent than creating an offence in respect of which it is very difficult to get anyone to prosecute. Whoever is to do anything about it has to do something active, whereas, if one leaves it to the civil law, passive action by the tenant in withholding his rent may be far more effectve in bringing about what my hon. and gallant Friend wants, the obligation to give this information to the tenant.
I suggest that he could achieve the object of the Bill in a simpler way by discarding all mention of the Rent Acts and by saying that wherever a tenancy is not granted in writing it shall be an obligation on the landlord to provide his name and address to the tenant; or to provide a rent book in which the landlord's name and address should be given.
My hon. and gallant Friend said that if there is a written agreement the information is there and the tenant has that information. The time when he requires the information is when there is no written agreement and no rent book in which the landlord's name and address appears. Let us make it an obligation where there is no written agreement that the landlord shall not be able to enforce any terms of the tenancy nor able to terminate the tenancy or evict the tenant unless and until he has provided a rent book with his name and with an address at which notices and legal process can be served upon him. That would be a one-Clause Bill without the complication of the Rent Acts, would achieve the principle which my hon. and gallant Friend desires, and be simplicity in itself.
I once again congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on bringing forward his Bill and raising this matter. If I have criticised the way in which he has done it and the drafting of the Bill, it is because I believe that there is a sound principle behind it and one which should not be restricted to any particular rateable value of property or any particular type of tenant but which should be a general obligation where this information is not already given, that is to say, a general obligation where the tenancy is not in writing.

3.56 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has said. He very often brings a great deal of common sense to Private Members' Bills. I cannot, however, entirely congratulate him on his approach to it, although I am in accord with what he said towards the end of his speech. I was rather astounded when he asked in the middle of his speech whether it was necessary to make a provision for the tenant to know the identity of his landlord. Of course it is necessary. It is


necessary for a very human reason and of great social consequence.

Mr. Graham Page: I think that I corrected myself. What I intended to ask was whether a new law was necessary for this purpose. Would not the law at present sufficiently provide protection for the tenant?

Mr. Fletcher: It is because the law is not sufficient and has so far departed from what I regard as the elements of justice and social equity that I am very glad we have the opportunity to consider the Bill.
I start from the premise that, apart from family relationship, the relationship between landlord and tenant is the most intimate relationship that one can contemplate. It may be that an individual has an intimate relationship with his butcher, or newsagent or doctor, but the relationship between landlord and tenant is something vital to everything upon which the tenant's comfort and happiness depends. I would have thought it would have been axiomatic that for the majority of tenants living in premises where they have complaints to make against their landlords that the happiness of the tenant or the physical conditions of life depend on his being able to live in premises properly roofed, properly built and properly repaired.
We are concerned with the relationship of landlord and tenant. This relationship, involving the home in which the tenant and his family live, is so vital to his whole happiness that it is extraordinary that anyone dare argue that it is not necessary for the tenant to know the name of his landlord. In my view, it is essential that he should know it, and I regard it as one of the elements that any self-respecting community should observe. It seems to me fundamental that a person living in a house with hi" family should know who his landlord is, to whom he pays his rent, to whom he goes to ask for his roof to be repaired when the rain comes in, to whom he goes to have the repairs done on which the whole basis of his family's comfort and the decency in which they live depends.
Just as it seems to me that we could not have a relationship with an anonymous doctor or an anonymous lawyer or an anonymous butcher, so we should

not have an anonymous relationship under which a person living in a house did not know the name of his landlord. In feudal days this was the whole basis of social relationships in this country. It was fundamental that one knew whose tenant one was. That may have developed a good many abuses in the course of centuries, but it produced the foundations of society. It is no less necessary today that a man living in a house and paying rent should know who his landlord is. It shows what a vast erosion there has been in conceptions of elementary justice that we have so many hundreds of thousands of people, as a result of the housing shortage, suffering hardship week by week because of the anonymity of landlords.
That is why the Bill is necessary. Because landlords have been able to shield behind that anonymity they have been able to neglect their duties. A great many individuals would not dare to indulge in this disgraceful neglect of landlords' duties if they knew that their identity could be publicised. There is a disgraceful neglect perpetuated by a great number of anonymous landlords. A great number of landlords are shielding behind an agent. That is the principle which lies behind the Bill.
When the hon. Member for Crosby, who often talks such sense, talked in his legalistic manner about anyone having a right to contract through an agent, I was prompted to ask, has a doctor a right to contract through an agent? There are many examples, particularly of the most intimate relationships of social life, in which there is no such right. If the hon. Member had said that every thief needs a receiver, there would have been some sense in it, because that is the true analogy. It is because unscrupulous, wicked landlords are able to contract through agents and to conceal their identity that much of the hardship of which we complain is suffered by tenants.
I agree with the tail end of the hon. Member's speech. Although my name appears among the supporters of the Bill, I hope that it will be possible to amend it. For the reasons which I have indicated, I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) on having introduced the Bill, but I hope


that it will be possible to improve it in Committee.
The Bill gives effect to proposals which I put forward in a Bill called the Rent Bill, which was introduced in the last Session but which unhappily did not make much progress. In Clause 10 of that Bill I sought to enable a tenant in all circumstances to ascertain information about the identity of his landlord and, very much as the hon. Member for Crosby has indicated, I then suggested that the right method for ensuring that the tenant obtained the information was not prosecution but giving the tenant an absolute statutory right to withhold rent until he had that information.
That is the logic of it, and that is the remedy which I should like to see; I should like to see it laid down that the tenant has the right to withhold rent unless the landlord is willing to let it be known to his tenants and to anyone else interested that he is the owner of the property or the director of the company owning the property. It may be derelict property or in a state of disrepair. The landlord should be prepared to face the ignominy or whatever risks are involved in acknowledging himself the owner or a director of the company which is the owner of the property. Before being permitted to collect rents from such premises he should be prepared to give this information. The tenant should be entitled to live in those premises scot-free until the landlord discloses his identity. That is the remedy I should like to see. It seems elementary common sense and justice, and I hope that we shall be able to amend the Bill in that respect in Committee.
The provision of a rent book is a matter of great importance to many tenants in poor and humble circumstances, or even in semi-illiterate circumstances. I know—and I have no doubt that other hon. Members also know—of many cases in which tenants have an almost exaggerated respect for this document. It is a symbol of the great pride they take in paying their rant regularly. Some unscrupulous landlords are mot very careful about the entries they make in rent books. I have known cases in which landlords have

written up as arrears payments which ought never to have been written up as arrears.
Under the present system there is nothing to prevent a landlord putting what he likes in a rent book. If he chooses to say that the tenant is two weeks in arrears with his rent, that the tenant has not paid his rant, or that the standard rent is higher than it really is, the tenant has no redress; he feels unable to correct the landlord's mis-statements in the rent book.
In order to protect tenants generally we should make a drastic overhaul of the existing statutory requirements relating to entries in rent books, in addition to the requirement concerning the landlord's identity. In cases where agents collect the rents for landlords it would be reasonable for penalties to be imposed upon them as well as upon the landlords if false information is contained in rent books.
In the present situation of acute shortage of housing accommodation, which has now existed for many years and which, without meaning to criticise anybody, I submit is likely to continue for a long time, the scales of justice are weighted unfairly between the landlord—especially the anonymous landlord who collects his rent through an agent—and the tenant who is anxious to keep a roof above his head. It is the duty of this House to do everything possible to see that these scales are more fairly equated, and that the tenant is given more drastic remedies in cases where he cannot discover the name of his landlord, or where false information is contained in his rent book about the standard rent, or the rates, or any other relevant matter.
I shall not detain the House any longer, above all because I am anxious to see that the Bill obtains a Second Reading.

3.9 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has described all tenants as angels and all landlords as devils.

Mr. Fletcher: I did not say that.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Very nearly. We know that most landlords and most tenants are fairly good, but that there are exceptions in both cases.
The Bill is right in principle, although I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East that it should be amended in Committee. It should certainly be amended on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to the extent of cutting out its limitation to rent-controlled property. It seems to me, on logical grounds, that if the Bill is good in respect of rent controlled property, it is equally applicable in respect of property which is no longer rent controlled.
We all know that there are many cases in which a tenant does not know who is his landlord. That happens at least as frequently in the case of uncontrolled property as it does in the case of controlled property. I should have that thought that the need to know the landlord was greater in the case of decontrolled property. Having said that, I am not altogether certain that the Bill as drafted sets about doing what is necessary in the best possible way.
In the sort of case which I come across—and I fancy that my experience is the same as that of most hon. Members—the landlord is known to the tenant, but it is a company which gives nothing away about who runs it or where it is situated. I am not sure that Clause 3 will do much to amend that situation. Merely knowing the name of a company will enable a tenant to take legal action if he wishes to do so, but as a rule tenants are not anxious to take legal action.
Normally, they want to be able to see their landlord in order to make personal representations to him. Merely knowing that the landlord is a company which, perhaps, has a registered office 100 miles away does not help. Nor does it help to have the names of the directors and secretary of the company. To the ordinary citizen, that is a lot of legal gibberish which does not help him at all. I am, therefore, not sure that Clause 3 will be of much help, or whether something more is needed, although I do not quite know how to deal with the matter.
One thing which would be helpful to a tenant—how provision for it can be made in a Statute I do not know—would be to know who is beneficially interested in the company. Very often

that is someone who is near by and who is available to be approached personally. However, there would even be difficulties in that.
In the ordinary way, merely to provide that a tenant should be told the name of the directors and secretary of the company will not help if that company is merely a trustee. That is a very common state of affairs. In many of the cases which I come across the name of the landlord is known to the tenant, but he is only a trustee or executor of someone who has recently died. When the tenant approaches that trustee or executor, he is merely informed, "I am a trustee", or, "I am the executor. I have to do the best I can for my beneficiaries. I can do nothing to help you". If the tenant asks, "Will you tell me the names of those beneficiaries?", he is then in difficulty.
Apart from that kind of case, which is a bona fide case, under the law, if it were amended as proposed by the Bill, there could easily be cases in which the landlord transferred his legal interest to a nominee trustee. All that the tenant will be able to learn is that his technical landlord was XYZ Ltd. with a registered office in Glasgow and with McTavish and Stewart as the directors and Mackenzie as the secretary.

Mr. Charles Doughty: Is my hon. Friend aware that when a landlord dies intestate, and no one wants to take up his rent-restricted property, which is a liability, the property is, by law, vested in the President of the Divorce, Probate and Admiralty Division. According to the Bill, in such cases the name which would have to appear on the rent book would be that of Sir Jocelyn Simon, who recently left the Government Front Bench to become President of the Division.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) has carried the argument a little further than I intended. This is a complex problem which is extremely difficult to deal with. I doubt whether we could include a provision in the Bill that when a landlord died intestate one should disclose that fact and also the name of his beneficiaries. Very often, to do that would be to disclose a mass of information to the tenant which would be useless to him


and of a kind which no one would suggest should be made available in that way.
That being so, I am not certain that the Bill will have the effect desired. I believe, however, that it should be sent to a Standing Committee. I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to comment on some of these matters. These questions should be more within the knowledge and ability of the draftsmen at his disposal than they are within the knowledge of back benchers. I hope that he will recommend that the Bill be given a Second Reading and that the matter may be considered in detail upstairs.

3.17 p.m.

Mr. James Allason: I join in the congratulations to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut-Col. Cordeaux). I declare my interest as a landlord—but as one of the vast majority who make no secret of their identities and addresses. If anybody knows how to spell my name he can find me in the telephone book, but few people do.
It is extremely important that the minority of landlords who have been cloaking their activities and hiding their names should be brought into the open. It is a fact that, in some cases, all that happens in the collection of rents is that a strange character appears on Friday night at an elusive time, collects the rents, and disappears. Nobody knows where he comes from and nobody knows where he goes.
It is very important that local councils should know who the landlords are. On occasion, when a council tries to trace a rent collector, he does not appear on that Friday. Perhaps he gets wind of what is going on, or else he sees the council official coming first. It is important for a council to know the names of landlords.
Of course, in these cases there is a constant change of ownership. Where the council wants to, or perhaps does, issue an enforcement notice—perhaps a sanitary order which will have a rather serious effect on the house—it is probably well worth while to change the house from the ownership of one company to that of another. The council

is then left some months behind, having to serve a new enforcement notice on the new owner. The declaration of ownership under the Bill would be of very great assistance and would, perhaps, mean that it would not be so easy for the sharp landlords to dodge away from their obligations.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said, there will be difficulties over Clause 3, where, if it is a company that is involved, there is provision for the names of the directors and of the secretary to be revealed, but not the names of the shareholders. It may well be that the directors are pure nominees, put in to cloak the identity of the true owner, and equally, the shares may be in the names of nominees and the true owner is hiding away in Dublin or somewhere, and it could be very difficult to get to the identity of the ultimate owner. However, that does not mean that we should not try to do it.
The whole purpose of the Bill, as I see it, is to unmask the name of the landlord who wants to try to hide it away, and I am sure that the right way to do it is by putting it on the rent book, that very valuable document which is so much prized. I believe that this is the right way to do it and I very much welcome this Measure.

3.20 p.m.

Sir James Pitman: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut-Colonel Cordeaux) and welcome the Bill.
Let me take this question of the difficulty of Clause 3 in comparison with the comparable difficulty in respect of nominees holding shares in companies. I think that we have got to recognise that we are living in a practical world, and that if Mr. Khrushchev wants to buy some property for one of his spies to live in, just as if he wanted to buy some shares for some purpose or another, he will always get a nominee to stand in for him. This House has always taken the view, I think very rightly, that it is no use legislating in any direction in which we cannot achieve our objective.
I think that the same sort of remedy might apply in this case where we want to know who it is who is in a position to answer. He may not be completely


responsible in one sense of the word, but he is responsible in the sense that he has got to give an answer. He is as a trustee, as I see it, and in that sense is the responsible person, and when a trustee says, "I am sorry, but I cannot do this because I have got to do the best for my beneficiaries," the tenant's come-back and answer to him is to say, "What you are really saying is that you do not agree to this, but you are the person responsible who can agree and nobody else can agree." In company finance only the first name on the books is recognised as being the person whose word counts in that matter.
I think that When we take the Bill into Committee, as I hope we shall, we shall have to take remedy in this direction by putting on the rent book the name of the person who is authoritatively charged with the power to give a decision in this matter, because I very much agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that the issue here is the obloquy when there is a bad situation, and we want to know who it is who really "carries the can" of responsibility for saying "No". I hope that the House will agree with me that it is irrelevant really who are the beneficial owners some miles back. We want to know who is the man who has the duty and responsibility of taking a clear decision in that case.
There is another point we have got to remember. There is such a thing as blinding people with too much information. It might be an awful job if the rent book had the first sixteen pages taken up with a list of shareholders with all their names and addresses. And where will that get anybody when he has read them all? I think that in Committee it would be a desirable thing to pinpoint the responsibility on one shoulder of that person who is in a powerful position to give a decision.
If I may take up what has been said by so many Members about how they have experienced the difficulties in their own constituencies in this respect, I would say that this has come into my field, also. The way in Which it really arises is from the change to a sellers' market from a buyers' market. I was looking at the Bath Chronicle not so very long ago, at pages and pages of advertisements of houses to let and the

ridiculously low rents at which people could take them. In the good old days, if one did not like one's landlord, if he was not keeping one's premises in repair, and so on, one had a very proper remedy—of going to a better landlord somewhere else.
The real gravamen of our difficulty at present is that we are in a sellers' market and the poor tenant is so much at the mercy of the landlord because of that. So we are back on a theme we are always playing in this House, how important it is that we should use economically the accommodation which is built and not have widows living in four-bedroom or five-bedroom houses and pointing to the room and the bed in which they gave birth to 16 children all of whom have gone out into the world and need 16 further accommodation units.
In that way I am sure that, partly by building and partly by putting our accommodation to better use, we can bring it back so that no longer will there be this seller's market in housing. That would go a long way to achieve the very worthy purpose of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central.

3.26 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: This is such a good Bill that I hesitate to say anything much about it in case I embarrass its progress through the House. I am not sure whether it would not be wiser to attack it rather than to praise it, and gain support for it in that way.
This is an excellent idea. I am only sorry that we did not think of it earlier, when we were in Committee on the Housing Bill last Session. We tried to get this extended to houses in multiple occupation, but we did not get very far. I wish that we had had more support for it then. I am all in favour of having rent books with the landlord's name in them. I hope that the points on which there have been some differences and argument and detail will not be regarded as interfering with consideration of the Bill in Committee.
I make only one or two short points on the Bill. The first concerns the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and the hon. Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman), about beneficial ownership. If


I may seek a little free advertisement, we had a shot at that in an Amendment which we moved to the Housing Bill last Session, in which we attempted to define beneficial ownership, in one case drawing on the Income Tax Acts. I think that we got reasonably near to doing it, but the Government did not take that view. I wish that they had shown a little more drafting courage. Possibly in this Measure that can be done. It is not an argument against a Bill that one cannot do everything with it. In a substantial way I think that this is worth doing.
I am not sure whether I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) about withholding rent as a sanction. That is open to a great deal of misgiving which people generally have about tenant's rights. One thing which tenants should not be encouraged to do is to withhold rents, because it is so tricky a thing to know when it is right to do so and when it is not. If we say that a tenant can withhold rent in one case because it is perfectly legal to do so, but that in another case, where there is a counter-claim for repairs not done, the rent should not be withheld, it becomes extremely confusing.

Sir J. Pitman: I think that it should be put on record that Section 151 of the Law of Property Act gives the tenant whose landlord assigned his interest the absolute right to withhold his rent until he has been informed of the name and address of that landlord. That does what is wanted in this Bill in the case of assignment. It is only in the case of the original tenant that one needs this Bill.

Mr. MacColl: If I were in the unfortunate position of having a collision with my landlord I should have the inestimable privilege of consulting the hon. Member for Crosby or my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East. In either case the hon. Member would whip out of his pocket the Law of Property Act, turn over the pages and say what should happen, but in the case of the average tenant on a weekly tenancy it is not so easy to peruse that Act. Therefore, I think that he would be

frightened about doing it. I think that he feels more confidence in the penal sanction of the landlord coming before the magistrates' court. That happens in health prosecutions and so on. It is a common enough thing.
These are matters for detailed argument in Committee. In general, I warmly commend the Bill to the House.

3.30 p.m.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I was impressed by what the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said about rent books. All who represent poorer districts in London appreciate the importance which is attached to those documents.
I was very interested in the remarks that the hon. Gentleman made about the possibility of false entries being made in rent books. I do not think that there is any provision in our legislation which makes that heinous crime an offence. In some cases tenants are the victims of unscrupulous landlords. However, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that all landlords are bad. There are good landlords and bad landlords.
The main objective of the Bill is to make the address of the landlord available to the tenant. Those who represent poorer districts in London know that there are syndicates of people who own property, that they do not wish their names to be publicised, and that they continuously shield behind a screen of nominees. I do not know whether the Bill will be able to tackle that problem. It seems that there is always a method by which people can avoid a direct link with the property which they possess when they consider that it is undesirable for them to be associated with it. I only wish that the Bill would deal with the problem. There have been many instances in my constituency where it has been practically impossible to trace the real landlord and bring down the shame which ought to be brought upon him.
It is, perhaps, a pity that the Bill does not encompass all classes of property. Clause 5 restricts the Measure virtually to properties falling under rent control. In a way, it might have been better had there been a wider provision.
On the other hand, some of the provisions appear to be a little too wide.
I instance "conditions of the contract" in respect of furnished housing in Clause 2. I think that it might be interpreted that the landlord had an unreasonable obligation towards his tenant, perhaps to give a complete inventory and other details which neither the tenant nor the landlord really desire.
I am sure, however, that none of us would quarrel with the principle of the Bill. I was, nevertheless, impressed by the remark of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that perhaps this was not the best method for tackling the problem. It is for the House to decide whether a Committee stage for the Bill will be worth while; in other words, whether the alterations which will be required for the Bill warrant the time of those who work upstairs on Wednesday mornings.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give a very full answer to all the points which have been raised. I hope that perhaps some other additional means may be found of making landlords disclose the name of property which they own.

3.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I certainly welcome the initiative of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) in introducing the Bill. It is by no means the first occasion on which he has shown his concern that the law should hold the balance fairly between landlord and tenant and that, in particular, the bad landlord should not be able to evade his responsibility.
I am sure the House will accept the general principle of the Bill, which is aimed at the type of landlord who goes to some trouble in preventing his tenants from establishing direct contact with him, usually in order to ask, as the hon. Gentleman said, for the execution of essential repairs and other works. The Bill is aimed only at a small minority of landlords, and I think there is no reason to suppose that there is anything wrong about a landlord acting by or through an agent, but the majority must accept, perhaps, a little inconvenience and difficulty in order that we can curb this minority of sharks and speculators. I am sure that my hon. and gallant

Friend has no desire to complicate matters for the ordinary decent landlord, who now, in accordance with existing law, gives a number of items of information in the rent book which he provides, including his name and address.
In so far as the Bill seeks to consolidate and rationalise the existing statutory provisions, it can serve a useful purpose. Apart from the fact that the existing provisions are not entirely consistent, as my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, in the matter of penalties awarded they are not effective. It is a matter of common knowledge that there are disreputable landlords who evade their responsibilities by converting themselves into one or more accommodation companies, and giving as the registered office of their company the address of a secretary or typist, who has no authority to act.
Clauses 3 and 4 are designed to deal with the problem of the bogus company. These purposes are unexceptionable, but the difficulty, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) pointed out, is one of drafting. This is not an easy matter, and I have no doubt that if the Bill is given a Second Reading some considerable thought will have to be given to this aspect of the problem. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) made a substantial point when he said that even if we cannot get at the ultimate beneficial owner the tenant must be able to get at someone who has some authority and is in a position to act.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) hoped that some drafting courage would be shown, but we do not want to have merely bold, bad drafting. Certainly, we should do all we can, if the House is minded to give the Bill a Second Reading, to assist in finding some provision which will get at the mischief which I think we all want to curb. Probably, further consideration will have to be given to some of the other provisions in the Bill, such as the nature of the penalties, and the scope of the Bill. My hon. Friends the Members for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) and Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn) made pertinent points in relation to the dwelling-houses and tenancies to which this Bill ought properly to be applied.
I think my hon. Friends have made a case for the general principle of this Bill, which the House might well consider should go to a Committee for detailed scrutiny on the lines which have been suggested this afternoon.

3.39 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I agree that this Bill ought to go to a Committee for consideration, but I am a little disturbed about some of its provisions. One of the provisions that seems to me to require more careful thought is contained in Clause 4 (1), where I foresee considerable danger for agents who are collecting rents on behalf of a landlord. The subsection reads:
If a landlord of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies fails to comply with any requirement of the foregoing provisions of this Act, he and any person who on his behalf demands or receives rent in respect of the dwelling-house, shall be guilty of an offence,".
If information has been called for under Clause 3 and the landlord has failed to give it but the agent, being ignorant of the request and of the failure to comply, he may continue to collect rent and be guilty of an offence.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that consideration should be given to the scope of the penalties. It has always been thought that, where a private Member introduces a Bill involving serious penalties, in these circumstances a liability for substantial sums of money, the provisions on which the penalties are based should be clear and definite.
I have an interest. I am a landlord both through companies and otherwise. I am wondering whether the answer to at least some of these problems lies in a greater use of the written agreement as such. The rent book nowadays contains very many clauses—if that be the right word—or paragraphs very often written in comparatively small print. It may be necessary in cases Where the houses come under the Rent Act for some such document to be made available, but I incline to the view that in oases outside the Rent Act a greater use of the written agreement, perhaps in a clearer form, might be better.
It has been said that the rent book is regarded as a most valuable document, and this is so in some cases, but one's experience in other circumstances shows

the other side of the picture; the rent book is sometimes lost and people do not realise how important it is. There is no magic in the rent book as such.
I suggest that we should consider carefully the limitation to decontrolled properties up to a rateable value of £40 in London and £30 elsewhere which is contained in the Bill. It seems to me that this is a limitation for which there is no obvious reason.
When I heard the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) talking about hundreds of thousands of landlords sheltering behind agents, I knew, of course, that that was a hopeless exaggeration.

Mr. Fletcher: I spoke of hundreds of thousands of tenants.

Sir E. Errington: Hundreds of thousands of tenants sheltering behind agents?

Mr. Fletcher: No, suffering from landlords, I said.

Sir E. Errington: When the hon. Gentleman reads what he said, he will find that those were not his words.
What we must do in legislation like this is to clamp down on the bad landlord, the landlord who is taking every opportunity to avoid his obligations, without making life difficult—and it can be very difficult—for the good landlord who is doing his very best to preserve his property in good condition and work in helpful agreement with the tenants. I hope that the Bill will be considered on that basis in Committee.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: On the whole, it is my view that the Bill should go to Committee for radical alteration of its details. Nothing I say or do today will alter that view in any way. But, as with everything else which one does in life, one must consider one's reasons for doing so and whether it is necessary and advisable to do it. The only reason why this can be necessary is that there are a few—I am glad to say a very small number—landlord property companies or landlord individuals who avoid their obligations as landlords and put an unnecessary burden upon their tenants. There are also, of course, many tenants who avoid their obligations as tenants.
It may well be that in cases where a tenant is or considers that he is badly treated there has been a breach of contract between him and his landlord, but he is unable to find out who his landlord is. But he has the simplest possible remedy at present—he can refuse to pay his rent. If finally he is sued for it, he has to be sued by the landlord and not by the agent, and in that action he can bring such counter-claims as he may think fit.
Hon. Members have spoken as though being the landlord of property of this type was something in which there was a future. In fact, in the vast majority of cases it represents a serious financial liability with no possible future. It frequently leads to very great legal complications. When people die—and I regret to say that they do with the utmost regularity—no one will take on a property of this kind if it is left to him in a will or because the first landlord died intestate. The liabilities and obligations involved in such property are such that no one would touch it and on the death of a landlord it often becomes virtually ownerless.
Because of the peculiarities of our testacy law, it becomes vested in the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division and in every rent book there is the name of the hon. and learned Member who used to be in this House and who is now the President of the Divorce, Probate and Admiralty Division. That sort of thing does not make sense and it is the kind of thing that has to be borne in mind when we are dealing with a Bill of this kind.

Mr. James Allason: Would it not be a solution for the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division to form a property company?

Mr. Doughty: Yes, but as he has no personal liability for anything, we require indemnities out of the Consolidated Fund provided by the House of Commons. Nobody would be more delighted about that than the people whose property is involved.
How does the Bill deal with these difficulties, assuming that they exist? Clause 1 says:
Where the rent of a dwelling-house to which this Act applies is payable weekly, it

shall be the duty of the landlord to provide a rent book or other similar document for use in respect of the dwelling-house.
What does the landlord do if he is dishonest or is collaborating with a dishonest agent?
He produces that book, which is a rent book for all the properties street by street, and into it he enters every week the rent paid, or, when it is not paid, he makes an entry showing the arrears. To satisfy the tenant he gives him a receipt. To comply with the provisions of the Bill, he will put on the book the name of the landlord, but he will not be obliged to show the book to the landlord. He will not be obliged to give the tenant any information relating to the landlord, so that as at present drafted the provisions of the Bill will be easy to avoid.
In any event, is it really necessary to give the name of the landlord? Supposing it is a property company? In this type of property the tenant always deals with the agent. It may be that occasionally he cannot get any sense out of the agent and is forced to seek out the landlord, but if both the tenant and the landlord behave themselves discussions about repairs and so on are held between the tenant and the agent. The agent authorises the repairs and pays for them on behalf of the landlord.
It is Clause 3 to which I object. What does it matter who are the directors? They are not personally liable for failure to repair the roof of the property. No action can be taken against them, but only against the landlord, that is, the property company. If it is vitally important to the tenant to discover who are the directors, he can go to Somerset House and search the Register of Companies to get the information.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: I know that my hon. and learned Friend was not able to be present when I was dealing with this point. I was trying to emphasise that although it would be easy for, say, an hon. Member to get this information from Somerset House, it would not be so easy for the humbler tenant who lived in, say, in Penzance or Newcastle because the application has to be made in person. It cannot be made by post. The more humble and simple tenant whom the Bill is designed to protect might find it an insuperable problem to get this information.

Mr. Doughty: He can get someone to get it for him. Everybody has friends in London.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I cannot see what value it would be to the tenant to have this information. He may discover three or four names, but he would be in no better position than he was before. What he needs to know is the name of the company.

Mr. Doughty: I agree with my hon. Friend. What use would the names of the directors of the company be to the tenant? If he is incensed at the way he has been treated, his remedy lies in bringing an action against the company. The directors of the company may not even know that the action is being brought because the agent and, if necessary, solicitors and legal people, will deal with the matter on their behalf.
Then, one has to look at the penalty Clauses very carefully. Even if there is a genuine mistake in entering the name of the landlord in the book, and even though the landlord may know nothing about the mistake, he will still be liable to a penalty. He will be liable to be brought before a criminal court and fined because his agent has perhaps innocently entered the wrong name in the rent book, or got the name of the wrong company because the company has changed hands without him knowing it. Whatever the reason for the wrong name being on the book, the landlord will find himself in the magistrates' court and liable to be fined because of an error by his agent.
Again, if there should perhaps be an accident or slip by somebody not filling in the name of the landlord, and the landlord receives rent which is due and payable to him in any event, the agent, and probably the landlord as well, will be liable to be brought before a magistrates' court for asking for that to which they are entitled and fined.
It does not sound right, and I would recommend my hon. and gallant Friend to look into the matter more carefully and to consider whether a withholding of rent from such time as this information is withheld would not probably be the better course and the one which, in practice, would work out better. It would be a course which the tenant could himself apply summarily, quickly and effectively.

Who is going to start these proceedings in the magistrates' court? The local police are not interested. Is the tenant himself going to organise the case, which is somewhat complicated? Is he going to apply for a summons against people whom he does not know, the grounds of the offence being, "I do not know who they are because they are not on the rent book."?
In all these circumstances, I think that the matter wants looking at very carefully before a penalty Clause of this kind is imposed. The fines proposed are not small. They are £100 and £10 for every day. That is the type of penalty which is imposed for a very serious offence, one wilfully committed and one having serious effects upon other people. It is for the House to consider whether the undoubted misdemeanours of a small number of people justify the introduction of this further burden on those who act as agents for the letting of lower rateable value property. They would have to remind their employees, who come and go with remarkable speed, that they must give this information correctly or render their employers liable to be sued in a magistrates' court.
If the House thinks that the time has come when this should be done, no doubt the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and will deal with these questions in Committee. Whether the supplying of the name and address of a company which is not perhaps registered in this country, or whether the supplying of the name and address of a syndicate which, perhaps, may only be temporarily resident in this country and difficult to trace, will really have the effect of dealing with people who wish to be awkward because they are trying to avoid their obligations is another question indeed.
I wish my hon. and gallant Friend success with his Bill, but I hope that he will look at the points which I and other hon. Members have raised and will not be intransigent in Committee as, otherwise, he may find that his Bill will not have the same easy passage when it comes to Third Reading as it has had today. If my hon. and gallant Friend will bear that in mind and will put down the appropriate Amendments, I am sure that he will produce a workable Bill which we shall ail have great pleasure in getting through its final stages.
As far as I personally am concerned, I do not propose to do anything which will prevent my hon. and gallant Friend from taking his Bill to Committee and discussing there the points raised today by myself and other hon. Members, and no doubt a great many other points which he will think of after his Bill has obtained its Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

EXTENSION OF LEASES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In the 60 seconds left for me to speak today, I wish to say that before 1954 two temporary Bills were put before the House to extend leases for one or, per haps, two years. In those days it was quite clear that the Government and the people considered that there was a severe danger in the leasehold reform system remaining as it was. We had the 1954 Landlord and Tenant Act, which was brought in by the present Lord Chancellor at the time when the present Prime Minister was Minister of Housing and Local Government—

It being Four o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER interrupted the business.

Second Reading deferred till Friday next.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Sir J. Pitman.]

Committee upon Friday next.

SEA DEFENCES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I am raising today the question of the sea defences of the country, including river flooding. Once and sometimes twice a year we have reports from various parts of the country of our sea defences being breached and of many communities on the coastal strips suffering great distress. We have also the situation at least once a year of the flooding of areas where we have our rivers. The effect is that every year we have the same story of property destroyed, lives lost and a great deal of distress suffered by the people concerned.
We had earlier this month, in Cornwall and parts of Devon, a repetition of what has been going on throughout the ages. The people of those areas are suffering almost continuously. These are areas with very small county district authorities which can ill afford to impose on the residents the cost of either the maintenance of sea defences or the consequences of flooding. It is true that the Exchequer makes certain grants, but when we questioned the Minister of Housing and Local Government about flooding in Cornwall he admitted that any burden on some of these local authorities would be an undue burden. This situation has arisen this year in Devon and Cornwall but there is constant repetition, for it arises wherever small areas are vitally affected in this way.
Many people who have suffered the consequences of flooding have been unable to secure the necessary insurance to cover their property—and when I speak about property I am speaking not merely in terms of bricks and mortar but in terms of family homes which have been built up over many years, often as a result of great sacrifices. Then, as a consequence of a breach of our sea defences, those people have to suffer the indignity of being the recipients of charity because we have the archaic system by which we create national funds of one kind or another to meet the situation.
In addition, there is the important issue of agricultural land. The National Farmers' Union is very much concerned with the cost to the farming community of the losses due to flooding of one kind or another. But the N.F.U. also brings out another point. At present, there are certain Exchequer grants in the case of both the breaching of sea defences and land erosion, but once the revetment has been done there is no assistance from the Exchequer for the maintenance of that revetment. The N.F.U. has argued consistently for many years that sea defences ought to be a national responsibility, and in the case which it presents the N.F.U. emphasises the necessity not merely for the acceptance of the principle of national responsibility for sea defences but for the acceptance of the principle of national responsibility for the maintenance of the works once they have been carried out.
The position is that there is divided responsibility—and that is not good enough. Britain is an island. The biggest enemy of the island is the sea around our shores. We are involved with the lives and property of British subjects, and we meet that situation with a divided responsibility. This is our biggest enemy, but I do not think that Ministers see the problem in its proper perspective. For a long time the State has accepted its responsibility to ensure the defence of the country against external enemies. We spend enormous sums of money in defending the country against external enemies, but in an island what greater external enemy can there be than the seas around our shores?
Year after year, part of my constituency suffers from flooding. It also faces the problem of erosion. An ex-public house known as the "Jolly Waterman" will be no more within a few years' time, because the River Severn is gradually eating into the bank—gradually eating into the coast, in a sense—and the "Jolly Waterman" will be in the Severn. That is only part of the whole story of erosion which is taking place along the banks of that river. The river board is doing as much as it can, but it has not sufficient money to carry out the work necessary to maintain what are, in effect, the coasts in my part of the country.
If national responsibility can be accepted in respect of our country's defence against external enemies we should surely accept it in respect of the defence against our natural enemy—the waters around our shores. It is true that the Waverley Committee rejected the principle of national responsibility in its Report, but it also made many other recommendations which have not been implemented. But that Committee was set up largely in consequence of the flooding on the East coast in 1953. It reported in 1954, when it made all kinds of recommendations without accepting the need for national responsibility.
But since then we have had flood after flood, and breaches in our sea defences have occurred time after time. It is not sufficient for the Government merely to rest their case upon the fact that the Waverley Committee rejected the principle of national responsibility. We must consider the question again. We ought to take national responsibility in order to ensure that people living in the coastal areas and other areas which are subject to flooding are given the maximum defence, and are not caused the sort of distress that has occurred in the last year or two.

4.13 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) has raised an important topic, which it is difficult to discuss fully in the short time available. Taken in isolation, a case can be made out for all sorts of services being made a national responsibility. At various times it has been suggested that the Exchequer—that is, the general body of taxpayers—should pay the whole cost of education and of the police and fire services, because national standards are required and national rates of pay have been adopted.
On the other hand, it is said that the Exchequer should give greater aid to those authorities which have special problems which are not faced by more fortunate areas. But if some authorities have burdens cast upon them to maintain sea defences and coastal protection, burdens which do not fall upon other areas, they have corresponding advantages, in not having to face the problems of slum clearance and overspill, the costs


of which fall on many other areas. Furthermore, the cost of refuse and sewage disposal is often much less.
What we seek to do by way of the present system of Exchequer grants is to see that our national resources are spread as equitably as possible by means of the formula for the distribution of the Exchequer equalisation grant and also by means of the rate deficiency grant payments. In respect of many services, such as slum clearance and, in this case, sea defence and coast protection, we make special provisions.
I am sure that the hon. Member would not want to see us undermining local responsibility for local affairs. Certainly, there are occasions when the local authorities can and do act as agents for the central Government, but this should be for a minimum of functions if we are not to make them simply branch offices of Whitehall Departments.
Both coast protection by maritime local authorities under the Coast Protection Act, 1949, and sea defences by river boards under the Land Drainage Acts are responsibilities which call for local judgment. In the case of coast protection, it should be for the local authority to decide whether protection works are necessary and what form they should take. At seaside resorts, the sea wall is often part of the promenade and, to that extent, a valuable asset as well as an amenity. I see no case for the central Government taking the entire responsibility for a service like this, especially at a time when our general policy is directed to giving more and more control to local people over their own affairs.
The Waverley Committee accepted that the cost should be distributed, and rejected quite firmly the suggestion that the responsibility for coast defences should be placed on the central Government. The Government still feel that that is the right view. Of course, there is a national interest, and that is to ensure that the burden failing on individual authorities is not unduly heavy in relation to their resources.
The sea does not discriminate in its attacks on rich or poor authorities, and it is right that we should try to even out the discrepancies. I hope that I shall be able to go some way, at any rate, towards convincing the hon. Gentleman

that this is done, by and large, by the existing system of financial aid.
Under the Coast Protection Act, 1949, provision is made for grants from the Exchequer towards the cost of coast protection schemes. When Exchequer grant is paid, the county council also has to contribute. If the county council and the coast protection authority disagree about the amount of the contribution, the Minister determines the dispute.
Since the war, nearly 400 coast protection schemes have been approved in England and Wales at a total cost of about £16½ million. Exchequer grants so far paid have amounted to about £8½ million, or slightly more than half the total cost. In making those grants, account is taken of all the relevant local factors, such as the burden on the rates, and so on. There is no statutory limit to the amount of grant, but, in practice, it has usually been between 20 and 80 per cent. Prosperous authorities like Bournemouth carry out the whole of the work with no burden on the Exchequer. However, each case must be considered on its merits.
The capital works of river boards are eligible for grant under the Land Drainage Act, 1930. Broadly, the level of grant depends on the financial circumstances of the river board. Normal drainage work is aided at rates between 20 and 80 per cent., but sea defence work is eligible for an additional 15 per cent., subject to a maximum of 85 per cent. Since 1953, £38 million has been spent by river boards on sea defence work, of which £34 million has been met by Exchequer grants. A substantial part of that £34 million consists of 100 per cent. grants made to the East Coast river boards after the floods of 1953.
The Waverley Report stated that the members of the Committee were firmly convinced that the maximum grant of 85 per cent. should not be increased, for, if there was to be any responsible local judgment on the value of new works, some significant part of the cost ought to fall on the river board making the decision. That view is reinforced by the earlier and extremely authoritative Heneage Report.
It is true that the Waverley Committee suggested that the expenditure on


maintenance, to which the hon. Gentleman specifically referred, of river boards and coast protection authorities should be eligible for Exchequer grant not exceeding 50 per cent. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government carefully considered the suggestion at the time but decided not to accept it. Apart from the fact that new legislation would be needed, we think that maintenance is properly a local responsibility and that inasmuch as it is a burden it will be assisted by the rate deficiency grant payable to local authorities whose circumstances qualify them for it.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of dual responsibility. This is another matter which was exhaustively considered by the Waverley Committee. The desirability of having different responsible authorities, both at ministerial and local level, has been questioned on a number of occasions since.
It was not only considered by the Waverley Committee, but also when the Coast Protection Act, 1949, was being enacted. Most people—and certainly

the Waverley Committee—have concluded that there would be strong objections to disturbing the existing distribution of responsibility. The Waverley Committee urged the need for closer contact between all the bodies concerned, however, and, since the Report was published in 1953, a great deal has been done to review the arrangements for cooperation between river boards and coast protection authorities, and general agreement has been reached about the division of responsibility. We have found very few cases of difficulty and do not envisage that any such cases are likely to arise in the future.
There is no evidence to suggest that either the present administrative system or the sea defence work cost in itself is placing an undue burden on local finances. Bearing in mind, therefore, the substantial Exchequer contribution which I have described, the Government do not feel that there is any general case for altering the existing arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Four o'clock.